1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Order No. 1244/15 as contained in Memo No. 2980/Go dated 27.10.2015, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Khunti, whereby, the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months. Prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 28.12.2015, as contained in Memo No. 5049/Go, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Sub-Inspector of Police in Criminal Investigation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. He was the Officer-in-Charge of Khunti Police Station. Khunti P.S. Case No. 47/2015 dated 23.3.2015 under Sections 364(A), 386, 387, 307, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against one Vipul Vijay @ Vipul Vijay Tiwari and he was taken into custody. As the charge-sheet was not submitted within 90 days from his custody, the said accused got the benefit of Section 167(II)(A) Cr.P.C. and was released on bail. When this fact came to the knowledge of the higher authority, the matter was enquired and it was found that the charge-sheet was not submitted in Court within time, thus the Officer concerned was found to be negligent for which, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Dy. S.P. (Headquarters), Khunti holding the petitioner guilty. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a report was submitted finding the petitioner to be guilty in the departmental proceeding. After following the procedure of law, the petitioner was punished by the order impugned dated 27.10.2015 and punishment of stoppage of increment for six months was imposed upon him. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2015.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court praying therein to set aside the orders impugned.

4. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition, as argued by him, is that the person, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, is the same person, who conducted the departmental enquiry, thus, there is an element of biasness which has prejudiced his case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary enquiry and the departmental enquiry could not have been conducted by same person. He further submits that the punishment is also disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner. He also argues that the said charge-sheet was handed over to Police No. 278 Surendra Kumar, who went to submit the said charge-sheet but finding no person in G.R. Section, had handed over the same to the In-charge Public Prosecutor, who did not submit the same to Court concerned within time for which, the accused was released on bail. He further submits that no fault can be found on the part of this petitioner. He also argues that the departmental enquiry was biased on the ground that the Officer, who conducted the departmental enquiry, had to support his own finding and the conclusion arrived at by him in the preliminary enquiry. On these grounds, he prays to set aside the orders impugned.

5. The counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit and opposed the statements made in this writ petition. He submits that the petitioner was careless and negligent in his duty and it was found that because of this petitioner, accused of Khunti P.S. Case No. 47/2015 was released on bail from judicial custody as the charge-sheet was not submitted in Court within 90 days of his arrest. He also submits that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was guilty. Basing on the same preliminary enquiry report, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental enquiry and in the said enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty thus punishment was inflicted upon h