JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the entire Departmental Proceeding bearing No. 02/14 and consequential order dated 23.07.2015 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of forfeiture of increment for one year without cumulative effect which will be equivalent to 02 black marks and also for quashing of an order dated 13.05.2016 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment of forfeiture of increment for six months without cumulative effect which will be equivalent to 01 black mark. Prayer has also been made for payment of consequential benefits and other dues. Further, the petitioner is not challenging the order dated 07.10.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 26.07.1994 and posted in Chaibasa District Police. After bifurcation of the State in 2000, the petitioner was allotted Jharkhand Cadre and posted in Saraikella Kharsawan District Police and remained there till April, 2003. The petitioner was thereafter posted in Ranchi where he worked till 2010. The petitioner promoted to the post of ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector) in April, 2010 and was transferred to Koderma District. He submits that one Suka Oraon lodged an FIR against the petitioner at Ranchi bearing Bero P.S. Case No. 104/11 under section 366 of Indian Penal Code alleging therein that petitioner has kidnapped his wife. After investigation police submitted final form on 29.02.2012 wherein the case against the petitioner was found false and fabricated. On the same day one Suka Oraon filed a complaint case being C.P. Case No. 53 of 2012 under sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, West Bengal. A letter dated 07.03.2013 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, Dumka Zone to take action. On that basis a departmental proceeding bearing D.P. No. 06/12 was initiated against the petitioner and enquiry report was submitted. A letter dated 07.03.2013 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, Dumka Zone to take action. On that basis a departmental proceeding bearing D.P. No. 06/12 was initiated against the petitioner and enquiry report was submitted. The petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of forfeiture of increment for one year, without cumulative effect, which will be equivalent to 02 black mark. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh which was dismissed. Thereafter, one Sushila Tirkey, wife of Suka Oraon also filed a complaint case vide C.P. Case No. 1195 of 2012 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Thereafter fresh departmental proceeding was bearing D.P. No. 02/14 was initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj passed an order of major punishment whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of forfeiture of increment for one year, without cumulative effect, which will be equivalent to 02 black mark contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sofar as petitioner is concerned he is not challenging the earlier punishment order dated 07.10.2012. However, the petitioner is challenging the present punishment order as for the same set of charge, the petitioner has been punished twice. He submits that the impugned actions are arbitrary and illegal and in view of well settled principle of law, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that she has filed counter-affidavit. She submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner for abduction of wife of one Suka Oraon that is why departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. She submits that petitioner has himself admitted in the writ petition that he has inadvertently preferred appeal which is not prescribed in the police manual. 7. In view of the above facts, the Court has perused the material available on record which suggests that on complaint of one Suka Oraon, petitioner has already been punished vide order dated 07.10.2012 contained as Annexure-5 and for the same set of allegation, again a complaint case was filed subsequently in the District of Ranchi that is why two departmental proceeding have been initiated. It was incumbent upon the authority concerned to enquire about the veracity of incidents which are on same line for which petitioner has already been punished for the same set of charge. It transpires that the petitioner has been punished twice which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 23.07.2015 and 13.05.2016 contained as Annexure-9 and Annexure4 16 respectively are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefit in view of the fact that punishment orders have been quashed. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.