MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. While the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer (for brevity ‘SHO’) at Laukahi, he proceeded for leave of five days from 06.03.2006. The leave was sanctioned on the ground of demise in the family. The petitioner did not resume his duty w.e.f. 12.03.2006. He has overstayed for five days beyond the period of leave. The said lapse on the part of petitioner has been taken cognizance by the Authorities, who have issued a charge memo dated 20.04.2006, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The two charges for which the inquiry was conducted are as follows:—

^^¼d½ tc ;s ykSgdh Fkkuk ds Fkkuk izHkkjh ds :i esa inLFkkfir Fks rks fnukad 06-03-2006 ds vijkg~u esa 5 fnuksa ds vkdfLed vodk'k esa izLFkku fd;s FksA buds vkosnu esa fj'rsnkj dh e`R;q gksus dk dkj.k fy[kk x;k FkkA bUgsa fnukad 12-03-2006 dks vius drZO; ij ;ksxnku djuk pkfg, Fkk] ijUrq ;s gksyh ioZ egRoiw.kZ fofèk&OoLFkk dk;Z gksus ds ckotwn Hkh LosPNk ls vodk'k esa fiNM+sA
¼[k½ dq[;kr vijkèkh lat; ;kno dks fxjrkj djus dk vkns'k budks fn;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq buds }kjk fxjrkj ugha fd;k x;kA tcfd vijkèkh Fkkuk {ks= esa gh Fkk rFkk x'rh ds Øe esa Fkkuk ds vU; inkfèkdkfj;ksa }kjk mls fxjrkj fd;k x;kA**

3. The second charge is of no relevance today, since there is no dispute that the accused, with respect to whom, charge no. 2 was framed, was arrested by raiding party, headed by the petitioner on 17.03.2006, which is evident from bare perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has not been visited with any penal consequences on the strength of the second charge in the charge-memo.

4. Insofar as charge no. 1 is concerned, the petitioner produced some documents showing that he underwent treatment in a Government hospital. Citing his illness and genuineness of this plea based on documents issued by the Government hospital, he has presented his defence in the proceeding before the Conducting Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jhanjharpur. The genuineness of petitioner’s plea regarding illness based on documents has been accepted by the Conducting Officer in his inquiry report dated 24.01.2008, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Despite acceptance of the petitioner’s defence by the Conducting Officer and the specific opinion of the Conducting Officer holding the charge not proved, the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, by order dated 09.02.2008, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, has awarded the petitioner punishment of withholding of increments for 6 months equivalent to one black mark.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that without communicating any points of difference with findings of the Conducting Officer, or opportunity to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police has straightaway proceeded to record the order of punishment. The order visiting the petitioner with penal consequences, is ignoring the findings favourable to the petitioner in the inquiry and not preceded by compliance with principles of natural justice and, therefore, is unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was having a responsible position of SHO, the overstayal of leave has resulted in a situation where a very important festival like ‘Holi’ passed by without the SHO’s presence in the police station. It is further submitted that the petitioner was at least obliged to intimate the Authorities if he could not resume duty after lapse of the leave period. These factors have weighed before the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, in passing the order of punishment and, therefore, the order suffers from no infirmity. He further submits that the order being a minor punishment could have been passed in the manner in which it has been done. The same has duly been affirmed by the Appellate Authority by a reasoned and speaking order dated 13.02.2009, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petit