JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 05.08.2016, by which, the petitioner has been imposed with punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 and also for direction upon the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the next higher post with effect from the date of his juniors were promoted. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner initially joined services in Bihar Administrative Services and after bifurcation of the Cadre, he was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand and at present he is posted at Jamshedpur as District Welfare Officer. It has been averred that while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reform, Chaibasa Sadar, he was served with one memorandum of charge alleging therein altogether six charges with respect to commission of some irregularity in course of his official duty. Basing on which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority has given its opinion that a regular departmental proceeding would be a wastage of time, hence, opinion was given to impose minor punishment, which would be apparent from note dated 10.03.2010 and thereafter vide note dated 6.11.2010 the decision was taken to impose minor punishment like censure and the same was forwarded to Principal Secretary of the Department for its approval, which was accepted on 23.11.2010 and opinion was given that no departmental proceeding is required to be initiated. With the aforesaid note, the Principal Secretary addressed to the then Chief Secretary but the Chief Secretary differed with the opinion and recommended to impose major punishment by way of imposing withholding one increment with cumulative effect and the petitioner will not be entitled to get his promotion for one year. And, thereafter file was again sent to Deputy Secretary and regular departmental proceeding was initiated after lapse of about three years and after five years therefrom departmental proceeding was concluded, which adversely affected the service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charges framed against the petitioner are vague in nature. And, thereafter file was again sent to Deputy Secretary and regular departmental proceeding was initiated after lapse of about three years and after five years therefrom departmental proceeding was concluded, which adversely affected the service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charges framed against the petitioner are vague in nature. It has been submitted that the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as before imposing the impugned punishment no enquiry report was served upon the petitioner, which vitiates the entire departmental proceeding. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that noting on the file would not amount to a decision as alleged by the petitioner. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the gravity of charge, finally it was decided to initiate departmental proceeding, which culminated in passing of impugned order as per relevant rules of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule. Further, the departmental proceeding does not suffer from any irregularity as the impugned order has been passed in adherence to the principles of natural justice and on the request of the petitioner himself that he intends to file review petition, the copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.09.2016. But, instead of filing review, the petitioner straightway filed instant writ application. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the departmental proceeding the petitioner did not co-operate due to which, the proceeding dragged for a long period, which is evident from letter dated 27.06.2012 issued by the then enquiry officer. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference in impugned order dated 05.08.2016 for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i).With respect to commission of some irregularity in course of his official duty, a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation vide letter dated 04.08.2008, to which the petitioner replied vide letter dated 21.08.2008. But, it appears that after inordinate delay of three years in the year 2011 the respondents-authorities decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. From perusal of the record, it further appears that though initially Deputy Secretary of the Department recommended for minor punishment as censure after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, which was approved up-to the level of Principal Secretary, but, the Chief Secretary differing with the opinion recommended for imposition of major punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and petitioner will not be entitled to get his promotion for one year vide note dated 29.11.2010. It is true that these are inter-departmental correspondences and it has no bearing with the departmental proceeding but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that before initiating departmental proceeding the authorities concerned ought not to have come to a conclusion of imposition of punishment, as has been done in this case and further even for initiating a departmental proceeding the respondents were initially of the opinion that it is not necessary but only on the note of the then Chief Secretary departmental proceeding was initiated and for coming to the conclusion that departmental proceeding should be initiated it took three years and further five years have been taken in culmination of the departmental proceeding. In this context, the stand of the respondent that petitioner did not co-operate in the departmental proceeding appears to be wrong as it is the respondents themselves who took three years to come to the conclusion that departmental proceeding should be initiated. (ii).Be that as it may be, besides, admittedly, in the case at hand, before imposition of punishment copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Though, on the request of petitioner copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner on 28.09.2016 but much before that impugned order was passed, hence, it was of no use for the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again has held in unequivocal terms that non-furnishing of enquiry report would amount to violation of natural justice. Few of such celebrated decisions are reported in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan as reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 6. Few of such celebrated decisions are reported in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan as reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitioner stands allowed.