JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sameer Sahay, learned A.C to A.G. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.07.2018 contained in Annexure-6, whereby punishment was inflicted upon him for forfeiture of increment of his salary for a period of six months was imposed which is equivalent to one black mark to be incorporated in the ACR and further prayer is made for quashing the entire departmental proceeding. 3. The prayer is also made for quashing the appellate order dated 29.03.2019 contained in the Annexure-8. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1989 through the Bihar Subordinate Service Commission and after remaining posted in many district of the then unified State of Bihar was allocated the cadre in the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State of Bihar and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Inspector. 5. The petitioner was posted as Officer-In-Charge at Sidhgora Police Station from 21.01.2017 till 06.09.2017. On 06.09.2017, the petitioner was released from Sidhgora Police Station for joining of the Investigating Training School, at Ranchi and thereafter on deputation was posted at Police Headquarter, Ranchi vide Memo No. 921 (P) dated 30.08.2017. Petitioner received a letter dated 23.02.2018 from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police at Jamshedpur, whereby the charge was inflicted upon the petitioner to the effect that due to non production of the case diary of Sidhgora Police Station Case No. 33/2015 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, a direction was issued by the High Court for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and petitioner was asked to reply within three days. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted on deputation of Police Headquarter, Ranchi and in such an eventuality,, three days time to submit his explanation was not enough and it was not possible as the petitioner had no inkling or knowledge about providing the case diary of Sidhgora Police Station Case No. 33/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.04.2018. Without providing any reason a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charges of misconduct were also framed against the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.04.2018. Without providing any reason a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charges of misconduct were also framed against the petitioner. After punishment order petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 29.03.2019. 7. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since matter of calling the case diary of Sidhgora Police Station case no. 33/2015 was pending before the High Court, although the petitioner was posted as Officer-In-Charge at Sidhgora Police Station from 21.01.2017 till 06.09.2017 and final report was prepared and no charge sheet was submitted in the said case. 8. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the witnesses examined in the department were not examined in presence of the petitioner. To buttress his argument he took this Court to supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-State, whereby the enquiry proceeding has been brought on the record. 9. This Court has perused the enquiry report and find that the witnesses were examined in absence of the petitioner. 10. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is well settled proposition of law that the delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. To buttress his argument he has relied on a judgment in the case of Brij Bihari Singh Vrs. Bihar State Financial Corporation & Others reported in 2016 (2) JCR 154 SC Para-8 which reads as under:- 8. It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him a departure from this requirement violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit and also conjecture and surmises cannot be sustained in law. 11. Mr. Furthermore, the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit and also conjecture and surmises cannot be sustained in law. 11. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the second show cause has not been issued against the petitioner which is a condition precedent in view of Rule 828b of Police Manual Rules. For ready reference the Rule 828b is quoted herein below :- 828(b) 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 an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a 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. 12. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner which causes prejudice to the petitioner and petitioner has worked with the department for 30 years without any complain from any quarter of his service carrier. He further submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law as it is against the well settled proposition of service jurisprudence. 13. Per Contra, Mr. Sameer Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring paras 12, 13, 15 of the counter affidavit submits that pursuant to the order of this Court the charge sheet against the petitioner was issued and the departmental proceeding was initiated and the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment. 14. On query from this Court about the examining the witnesses in absence of the petitioner and not supplying of the enquiry report Mr. Sahay submits that there is no averment to that effect in the counter affidavit, thus it appears that the State has admitted the position that the witnesses were examined in absence of the petitioner and enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Mr. Sahay submits that he is not in a position to communicate to this court about second show cause notice, thus the contention of the petitioner with regard to second show cause not issued is also admitted. 15. Mr. Sahay submits that he is not in a position to communicate to this court about second show cause notice, thus the contention of the petitioner with regard to second show cause not issued is also admitted. 15. As a cumulative effect of above discussion this court finds that there is violation of Rule 828b of Police Manual which is condition precedent for inflicting the major punishment and the second show cause has not been issued to the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed without supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and in view of the facts that the petitioner has worked with the department for 30 years without being a single major penalty upon him. Accordingly the impugned order dated 30.07.2018 and 29.03.2019 contained in Annexure 6 & 8 respectively are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.