JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order contained in memo dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure-4), whereby the stoppage of one increment with retrospective effect has been passed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the appellate order dated 16.03.2017, whereby the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.02.2016 and upon quashing the orders dated 22.02.2016 and 16.03.2017, respondents may be directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed on 05.09.1994, as Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka. During his entire service career, no proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner and he has performed his duty to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent authorities. However, without any rhyme and reason, a departmental proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner for which charges were framed on 25.10.2014 and show-cause was asked from him. In reply to that, petitioner gave his show-cause reply on 10.02.2015 and 25.02.2015 annexing all the relevant documents. The Enquiry Officer, after considering every aspects of the matter, submitted his detailed enquiry report on 14.10.2015, with a specific finding that no charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority though differs with the enquiry report but without assigning any reasons and without issuance of second show-cause notice, passed the order of major punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment, on 22.02.2016, which amounts to two black marks. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 19.07.2016. The Appellate Authority, without considering the ground taken by the petitioner, vide its order dated 16.03.2017, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has also preferred review before the respondent No. 1 on 28.08.2017 and 08.01.2018, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principle of natural justice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principle of natural justice. The impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that Enquiry Officer has fully exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him by giving a detailed enquiry report and the disciplinary authority, though differs with the reasoned enquiry report but without giving second show-cause notice, passed the impugned order in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment orders are cryptic, as neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their own independent mind nor considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, before passing the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Samir Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner was the Investigating Officer of Nawadih P.S. Case No. 55 of 2014. Learned counsel further submits that audio visual compact disc containing statement of deceased Santosh Pandey was seized on 21.03.2014 but due to the lethargic approach of the petitioner, the requisition for sending the same to Ranchi or other Laboratories was prepared on 07.06.2014. In that period on account of lack of equipment and expert in those forensic laboratories, the audio visual compact disc could not be examined, while its report was sought by the Hon’ble High Court. Learned counsel further argues that due to failure in submission of forensic report, the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro had to physically appear before the Hon’ble Court and as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that after differing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment, which is according to the rule of law. Learned counsel further argues that investigation of a case requires seriousness, sincerity and impartiality and due to slackness in duty by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police has arrived to the conclusion that a punishment of stoppage of one increment be awarded against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel further argues that investigation of a case requires seriousness, sincerity and impartiality and due to slackness in duty by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police has arrived to the conclusion that a punishment of stoppage of one increment be awarded against the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (I) Petitioner has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. (II) The charges levelled against the petitioner has not at all been proved. (III) The Disciplinary Authority though differs with the enquiry report but without assigning any reason and also without issuance of second show-cause notice, has held the petitioner guilty of the charges and inflicted major punishment, which is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of its decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Managing Director, ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held that: “26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the enquiry officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the enquiry officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the enquiry officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer’s findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it.” Further in case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “10. …………. The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show-cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect.” The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , relevant paras of which is reproduced herein below: “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. ………. ……… 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” (IV) It was the requirement of the Disciplinary Authority to assign reasons regarding differing with the enquiry report and also to seek reply of delinquent employee. The same was not done in this case and as such, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside. (IV) Even the Appellate Authority has mechanically rejected the Appeal of the petitioner and without application of his independent mind and without assigning any reason, has just agreed with the view of the disciplinary authority. 7. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for considering the same afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority is required to look into the matter afresh after applying his mind, taking into consideration the exoneration of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. Needless to say that the entire exercise must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.