JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro whereby the respondents-authorities have inflicted punishment of withholding increments of six months. 2. The facts, in brief, is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, on the allegation that on 20.07.2009 he did not respond to the informant. On such allegation, the petitioner was asked to submit show cause reply, which he filed, but that was not considered and the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and Enquiry Officer was appointed, who vide his report dated 26.06.2010 exonerated the petitioner of the charges but the same Enquiry Officer on the same date held the petitioner guilty of the charges and prepared another report. However, basing on the enquiry report, in which, the petitioner was held guilty, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of withholding of increments of one year amounting to two black marks, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, raising the contention of two enquiry report, who reduced the punishment to withholding of increments of six months. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the very outset vehemently submitted that before passing the impugned order the petitioner has not been served with the enquiry report, which vitiates the entire proceedings. It has further been submitted that the complainant was not examined in the enquiry proceeding, hence, the entire enquiry proceeding goes. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the same enquiry officer has at first exonerated the petitioner of all the charges but on the same day submitted another report and held the petitioner guilty of the charged, hence, the appellate authority vide order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure 8) issued a show cause notice to the Enquiry Officer. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law & Order, also enquired the matter and in its report dated 31.07.2009 did not find anything against the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law & Order, also enquired the matter and in its report dated 31.07.2009 did not find anything against the petitioner. 5. Controverting the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the record of departmental proceeding contains only one enquiry report, in which, the petitioner has been found guilty. So far another enquiry report, in which, the petitioner has not been found guilty is concerned, the same was never referred/communicated as the same was never in existence. It has further been submitted that in view of the proved charge just punishment has been awarded to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that before issuing impugned order the petitioner has not been served with the copy of enquiry report, thereby the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and has been issued in complete violation of principles of Audi Alteram Partem, which is a sine qua non before taking any adverse decision against any person and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-State does not have leg to stand that the enquiry report, by which, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges was not in existence, as for giving two contradictory opinion, vide Annexure 8 dated 22.07.2011, the enquiry officer was issued show cause notice. Furthermore, the appellate authority in its order dated 04.06.2011 has also taken note of the fact that the complainant/informant was himself was not examined and no action was taken on other police personnel, who were on duty on the date of occurrence. 8. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, whereby the respondents-authorities have inflicted punishment of withholding increments of six months are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.