(2026:JHHC:1980) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No. 76 of 2022 Kamlesh Prasad Singh, aged about 71 years, son of late Amrit Singh, resident of - Ayear Niwas, Rana Nagar Colony, Gaya, Mannpur, PO - Buniadganj, PS - Muffasil, District - Gaya (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Home Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jaggarnathpur, District - Ranchi. 2. Director General of Police - cum- D.I.G., Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jaggarnathpurl District - Ranchi. 3. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, PO , PS & District - Hazaribagh. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (Administration), North Chhotanagpur region, Hazaribagh, P.O., PS & District - Hazaribagh. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV --- 09/27th January 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 06.02.2020 whereby his date of grant of ACP has been shifted. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons, namely, Nawal Kishore Singh, has been granted the entire benefit of 2nd ACP after he has been acquitted in the criminal case and also after setting aside of his punishment order in the departmental proceeding but the petitioner though he has been acquitted in the criminal case, has not been granted the similar relief rather his date for granting ACP has been postponed and the 3rd MACP has been denied. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner faced the criminal trial but he was acquitted. The petitioner was also proceeded departmentally and a punishment (2026:JHHC:1980) 2 was imposed upon the petitioner which the petitioner has not challenged rather accepted. So far as Nawal Kishore Singh is concerned, he has challenged his order passed in the departmental proceeding and got the same set aside. The petitioner thus cannot claim parity with Nawal Kishore Singh. 5. The petitioner in this case has not challenged the punishment in the departmental proceeding rather accepted the same. Since the petitioner has been punished in the departmental proceeding, as per the impugned order, his date of 2nd ACP was postponed and ultimately the 3rd MACP was also refused as he did not complete the necessary period. 6. I find no illegality in the impugned order, thus, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi Dated: - 27th January 2026 Uploaded on: - 03.02.2026