JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Annexure-2 memo no.6135/Conf. dated 30th October 2003 is the impugned order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereunder petitioner who was posted as a Constable during the period of mis-conduct at Tuila Dungari T.O.P. under East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has been imposed with the penalty of withholding of increment for 18 months which is equivalent to three black marks. On the principle of ‘no work no pay’ his salary and allowances have been forfeited. Period of his unauthorized absence was to be adjusted against extra-ordinary leave. This would have no any effect in his future increment. In appeal the Deputy Inspector General, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Area, Chaibasa vide memo no.349 dated 26th June 2004 (Annexure-3) upheld the punishment as no grounds to interfere were made out. 3. Charge against the petitioner vide (Annexure-1) dated 16th July 2003 bearing memo no.2163 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is to the effect that he remained in unauthorized absence for 11+74 days, total 85 days. He was granted casual leave for 11 days from forenoon of 29th March 2003 and was supposed to report on 10th April 2003 in the forenoon which he failed to do. He finally reported for duty on 22nd June 2003. The salary was withheld by District Order No.833/03 in the meantime. He submitted an explanation before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbbhum which was found to be unsatisfactory whereafter charges were framed. The inquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Kadma Circle, Jamshedpur who submitted his report on 30th September 2003 (Annexure-E). Petitioner has taken a plea of medical grounds and submitted an application for extension of his leave for 10 days vide Annexure-B and C respectively. During the inquiry 8 exhibits were adduced by the Presenting Officer and three witnesses were examined. Witness No.2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ramchandra Rajak, Police Centre, Jamshedpur and Constable Arun Kumar were examined on 15th September 2003. Inquiry Officer in his report has, while discussing the defence observed that despite repeated reminders petitioner did not furnish his show-cause. He submitted the treatment paper and certificate of fitness of the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer along with his application for extension of leave and receipt of registered post on his reporting to duty. On this basis his explanation was not worthy of acceptance. He submitted the treatment paper and certificate of fitness of the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer along with his application for extension of leave and receipt of registered post on his reporting to duty. On this basis his explanation was not worthy of acceptance. Charges of unauthorized absence for 85 days were found to be established. Based on these findings and other materials adduced during inquiry, the disciplinary authority held that the petitioner was responsible for indiscipline, irresponsible behavior and failure to discharge duty which are unbecoming of a personnel of the Police Department. 4. On the part of the petitioner specific plea has been taken that he was transferred to Garhwa from Jamshedpur where he joined in July 2003 (para-11 of the writ petition). At para-14 he had also stated that neither inquiry report nor any notice for presenting his case before the Inquiry Officer or respondent no.5 was issued. Principle of natural justice was therefore violated. As per Rule-835 of Police Manual, imposition of a penalty of withholding of increment for six months or more is equivalent to black mark and major punishment. 5. Therefore withholding of the increment for 18 months is equivalent to three black marks and is a major punishment. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the communication at Annexure-D issued by the Sergeant Major, Garhwa dated 20th September 2003 to substantiate the plea that notice if any sent for appearance of the delinquent petitioner before the Inquiry Officer was received on 16th September 2003 at Garhwa after the date fixed i.e. 15th September 2003. No other proof of notice is on record. Respondents in their counter affidavit at para-14 have failed to controvert the contention of the petitioner that no proper notice was served on him to participate in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, it is vitiated in law as well as on facts. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the absence was not authorized from beginning. Petitioner had proceeded on duly sanctioned leave and thereafter sought extension on the ground of his illness. This aspect has not been duly considered by the Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, his absence per se cannot be said to be unauthorized. 7. Counsel for the State has defended the impugned decision. Petitioner had proceeded on duly sanctioned leave and thereafter sought extension on the ground of his illness. This aspect has not been duly considered by the Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, his absence per se cannot be said to be unauthorized. 7. Counsel for the State has defended the impugned decision. Reliance is placed on the enclosed documents at Annexure-A, B and C which according to her show that petitioner was granted leave for 11 days to report on 10th April 2003; medical certificate furnished by the petitioner dated 14th June 2003 shows an advice for rest for one week and application was reportedly made by the petitioner for extension of 10 days only (Annexure-C). Reference is also made to the opinion of the Inquiry Officer and the observation of the disciplinary authority at Annexure-E and 3 respectively in support of the plea that due notice was given to the petitioner before inquiry was concluded and order of punishment was passed. Therefore, there is no violation of principle of natural justice and the impugned order does not deserve any interference. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant material facts born on record as noted above. 9. Rule 835 postulates the effect of black mark. It provides that reduction etc. or forfeiture or withholding of increment for a period longer than twelve months is equivalent to 3 black marks and whatever be the number of black marks in any one act of delinquency, it shall still count as one major punishment. Rule-824 is a description of the departmental punishments, Clause-(f) whereof refers to the punishment of black mark or marks. Under Rule 828 (a) items at serial (a) to (f) of Rule 824 are regarded as major punishment to be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent. Rule 828(b) provides that without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servants Enquiries Act 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction shall be passed on any Police Officer (other than which is criminal court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. Rule-828(c) which is relevant to the issue at hands reads as under :- “(c) In case in which, forfeiture of increment is proposed to be an adequate punishment, this may be inflicted without formal enquiry in the form of a proceeding but every such matter shall state clearly : first, the charges against the defaulter; then his answers to each charge, one by one; and lastly, the finding upon each charge of the officer inflicting the punishment. In such cases, the Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself, nor shall the delinquent have the right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before the officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence; and such officer, who shall not be below the rank of inspector, shall come to a clear finding on each charge and shall submit the record with his recommendations to the Superintendent for orders.” Evidently, in respect of forfeiture of increment, formal inquiry is not required, but every such matter shall clearly state the charges against the defaulter; then his answers to each charge, one by one; and lastly, the finding upon each charge of the officer inflicting the punishment. Such Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself and delinquent does not have a right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before the officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence; and such officer shall not be below the rank of Inspector who shall come to a clear finding on each charge and shall submit the record with his recommendations to the Superintendent for orders. In the facts of the instant case, petitioner reported for duty after his absence on 22nd June 2003. Charges were framed on 16th July 2003 after finding the explanation unsatisfactory. Thereafter he was transferred to Garhwa and he joined there also in July 2003 itself. Inquiry proceedings were conducted by Inspector of Police, Kadma Circle at Jamshedpur. Petitioner who had by then been transferred to Garhwa had to be noticed to participate in the inquiry. Only one such communication dated 28th September 2003 (Annexure-D) has been enclosed by the respondents as proof of notice upon him at Garhwa. Inquiry proceedings were conducted by Inspector of Police, Kadma Circle at Jamshedpur. Petitioner who had by then been transferred to Garhwa had to be noticed to participate in the inquiry. Only one such communication dated 28th September 2003 (Annexure-D) has been enclosed by the respondents as proof of notice upon him at Garhwa. Annexure-D a reply by Sergeant Major, Garhwa to the Inspector of Police, Kadma indicates that the notice dated 3rd September 2003 through Wireless No.813/C.L. was received at Garhwa on 16th September 2003 while 15th September 2003 was the date fixed in the inquiry. Perusal of the inquiry report shows that out of 3 witnesses, witness no. 2 and 3 were examined after witness no.1 on 15th September 2003 itself i.e. before the notice was actually effected at Garhwa. The specific contentions of the petitioner made at para-11 and 14 therefore stand substantiated. Therefore, requirement of law as per the provisions of Rule-828(c) do not seem to be satisfied. Lack of opportunity to place his defence amounted to violation of principle of natural justice also. The Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur in the impugned order at Annexure-2 and the appellate authority Deputy Inspector General, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Area, Chaibasa in his order at Annexure-3 both have failed to take into account this aspect. The order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Annexure-2) dated 30th October 2003 therefore stands vitiated. The appellate authority has also not dealt with the instant plea of the petitioner. As such, the decision making process has suffered. Petitioner has been able to make out the case for interference in exercise of powers of judicial review of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. Respondents are left with liberty to take decision in respect of the charges afresh from the stage of inquiry after due notice to the petitioner. Writ petition stands allowed.