ORDER : 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. 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 him, for which, no fault can be found. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is of bias, as the enquiry is against the principle of natural justice. It is admitted case that Dy. S.P. had conducted the preliminary enquiry, who found material against the petitioner. He also conducted the departmental enquiry and both the reports are on record. 8. Investigation of Kunti P.S. Case No. 47/2015 was conducted by this petitioner. It was duty of this petitioner to submit charge-sheet in court within time. It is also admitted that he handed over the charge-sheet to one Surendra Kumar, Constable No. 278, for submitting the charge-sheet in Court. 8. Investigation of Kunti P.S. Case No. 47/2015 was conducted by this petitioner. It was duty of this petitioner to submit charge-sheet in court within time. It is also admitted that he handed over the charge-sheet to one Surendra Kumar, Constable No. 278, for submitting the charge-sheet in Court. The petitioner has taken a defence that there was no clerk in G.R. Section when Surendra Kumar went to deposit the said document, therefore, the said document was handed over to the In-charge, Public Prosecutor who did not submit the charge-sheet in court within time, for which, the benefit under Section 167(II)(A) Cr.P.C. was extended to the accused and ultimately he was released on bail. 9. For this lapse a preliminary enquiry was held. On the report of the preliminary enquiry, a decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry. Admittedly, the same person has conducted the preliminary enquiry and the departmental enquiry. In preliminary enquiry, the officer concluded and subsequently, he gave a finding that this petitioner and the In-charge Public Prosecutor are guilty. On the basis of this preliminary enquiry report, the charge was framed against the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated. The same officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, was entrusted with the duty to conduct the departmental enquiry. He conducted the departmental enquiry and found the petitioner to be guilty. 10. A departmental enquiry should be fair and proper and should not smack of any biasness. Departmental enquiry should be independent and uninfluenced. A preliminary enquiry is held to arrive to a conclusion whether there is any necessity to initiate a departmental enquiry and where prima facie any misconduct has been committed by any person or not or an incident of any misconduct has taken place or not. A preliminary enquiry cannot be said to be mandatory requirement prior to initiation of departmental proceeding. Rather an enquiry in the departmental proceeding is mandatory by appointing an enquiry officer. The said enquiry officer should not be biased and should be independent and should not be influenced by any preliminary enquiry report. 11. In this case, I find that in the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had given a clear finding that this petitioner is guilty which was not within the scope of preliminary enquiry. The said enquiry officer should not be biased and should be independent and should not be influenced by any preliminary enquiry report. 11. In this case, I find that in the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had given a clear finding that this petitioner is guilty which was not within the scope of preliminary enquiry. Whether a person is guilty of misconduct is to be decided by the disciplinary authority and not by the person conducting the preliminary inquiry. In this case, as held, the person, who conducted the preliminary enquiry and declared the petitioner to be guilty, is the same person who was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry, who after conducting the enquiry in departmental proceeding, naturally found the petitioner to be guilty. Once an Enquiry Officer, who after conducting a preliminary enquiry finds a person to be guilty, in the next enquiry conducted by him the result will definitely be the same. The independence and fairness of the departmental enquiry, which is subsequent, definitely comes under question. The element of biasness creeps in the said proceeding. Naturally the same officer cannot work independently and cannot controvert or deviate from his own report of the preliminary enquiry where he has given a finding that the officer is guilty of misconduct. He will definitely be influenced by his own report submitted during the preliminary enquiry. 12. Thus, I find that the conducting the departmental inquiry by the same person, who has conducted the preliminary enquiry holding the petitioner to be guilty, was not proper and the element of biasness has crept in the entire process. Where there is an element of biasness in the departmental proceeding, the proceeding is vitiated as the same is in violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, the departmental proceeding is bad on the ground mentioned above, which is set aside. Consequently, 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 stoppage of increment for six months his and 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, are also quashed. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.