JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:- (i) for quashing D.O. No.1222/16 issued vide Memo No.2618 dated 01.05.2016 (Annexure 7) by Superintendent of Police, Giridih, whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one year increment which is equivalent to two Black Mark and for quashing of the appellate order contained in memo No.1489 dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure 9) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the punishment order has been upheld. (ii) For quashing Memo No.20 dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure 11) issued under the signature of Inspector General (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby memorial preferred by the petitioner has not been entertained. 2. Short fact of the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1999. On 27.09.2015 he made an application before the Superintendent of Police, Giridih through proper channel informing that during Pitripaksh, he would not do any hair cut and shaving. Vide Memo dated 01.10.2015, the Dy. S.P., Giridih informed the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner refused to prepare a letter. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police issued a show cause to the petitioner on 03.10.2015 to file explanation, but when the petitioner denied the allegation in his reply, the Superintendent of Police issued charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 28.02.2015. Finally vide Annexure 1, the order of major punishment was served upon the petitioner, whereby increment for one year was withheld which is equivalent to two Black Marks. It is specific case of the petitioner that before passing the order of major punishment, no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of major punishment, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously urges that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that provisions of natural justice have not been followed. Further it was argued that the order of major punishment is disproportionate. Neither the enquiry report, nor the 2nd show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which is mandatory requirement in the departmental proceedings. Petitioner is entitled for a copy of the enquiry report and also 2nd show cause notice before passing the order of major punishment. It was also argued by Mr. Neither the enquiry report, nor the 2nd show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which is mandatory requirement in the departmental proceedings. Petitioner is entitled for a copy of the enquiry report and also 2nd show cause notice before passing the order of major punishment. It was also argued by Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the order of major punishment is disproportionate to the charges. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State argues that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty and also for using unparliamentarily languages against the superiors. The act of the petitioner was unbecoming of a police personnel and indiscipline in police force cannot be tolerated and as such, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is fully justified and commensurate to the charges. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and submitted the enquiry report on the basis of which order of punishment was issued. Further, it was also argued that the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed in appeal as well as memorial. Justifying the impugned order, the learned State Counsel submits that no interference is warranted and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that copy of the enquiry report was never served to the petitioner and before passing the order of major punishment, 2nd show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner. The issuance of 2nd show cause notice and serving the enquiry report is a sine quo non, which amounts to complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It can comfortably be inferred that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to defend his case in response to a show cause notice along with the enquiry report. 7. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 held as under:- “29. ... ... 7. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 held as under:- “29. ... ... when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the inquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the inquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a branch of principles of natural justice. 57. A denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a great prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. Ex post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. To alleviate such an impression and to prevent injustice or miscarriage of justice at the threshold, the disciplinary authority should supply the copy of the report, consider objectively the records, the evidence, the report and the explanation offered by the delinquent and make up his mind on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty. The supply of the copy of the report is, thus, a sine quo non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure for the delinquent to defend himself efficaciously.” Para 30 of the aforesaid judgment has elaborately dealt with the consequences of non-furnishing of enquiry report:- “30. The supply of the copy of the report is, thus, a sine quo non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure for the delinquent to defend himself efficaciously.” Para 30 of the aforesaid judgment has elaborately dealt with the consequences of non-furnishing of enquiry report:- “30. Hence the incidental questions raised above may be answered as follows: [i] Since the denial of the report of the enquiry officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. [ii] The relevant portion of Article 311(2) of the Constitution is as follows: “(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.” Thus the article makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The article, however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. What is further, Article 311(2) applies only to members of the civil services of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or to the holders of the civil posts under the Union or a State. In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the enquiry officer’s report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the enquiry officer’s report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. [iii] Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him. [iv] In the view that we have taken, viz., that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan case should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. [v] The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. [v] The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which in itself is antithetical to justice.” 8. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court on account of conflict view in two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz Kailash Chandra Asthana v. State of U.P. reported in (1988) 3 SCC 600 and Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 , both delivered in Three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 , both delivered in Three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The disciplinary authority while passing the order of major punishment has not taken into consideration that in 17 years of service tenure, never any allegation was made against the petitioner of dereliction of duty and disobedience and ever the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on alleged misconduct. Petitioner was awarded 16 rewards which added feather to the cap of the petitioner and no major punishment was ever awarded. The satisfactory service career of the petitioner was never considered while awarding the present major punishment. In such a short span of time, efficiency and prompt characteristics cannot deteriorate markedly so as to allege the petitioner of misconduct which is unbecoming of a police personnel. In this factual backdrop, had the petitioner been afforded an opportunity to put forth his stand before the disciplinary authority after issuing a 2nd show cause notice to him for the purpose of imposing major punishment, certainly the disciplinary authority could arrive at a different conclusion with regard to quantum of punishment. This, in turn, has caused a prejudice to the petitioner. 10. Therefore, non-issue of 2nd show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report before taking a decision by the disciplinary authority amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the D.O. No.1222/16 issued vide Memo No.2618 dated 01.05.2016 (Annexure 7) by Superintendent of Police, Giridih being the disciplinary authority and the appellate order contained in memo No.1489 dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure 9) passed by respondent No.3 deserve to be quashed. The revisional/memorial order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Inspector General of Police loses its effect retrospectively on account of quashing of the aforesaid two orders. However, it will be open for the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of issuance of 2nd show cause notice along with the report of inquiry. So far as consequential benefits, which would flow towards the petitioner on account of quashment of the orders of major penalty, he shall be entitled for the consequential benefits. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.