JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. SBCWP No. 1978/99. 2. This petition is directed against the imposition of punishment of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect for remaining wilful absent from duty between 17.4.84 to 6..4.85 totalling 385 days. 3. In the first instance when the petitioner did not report on duty after s having been transferred from his place of posting at the relevant time. for the aforesaid period, a notice under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served on the petitioner calling upon his explanation. which was replied to by the petitioner, the Delinquent Officer on 8.5.85. 4. After considering the reply, inquiry under Rule 16 was converted into to inquiry Rule 17 of the CCA Rules under which it was proposed to impose a minor penalty after holding an inquiry in which the petitioner appeared, after remaining absent for considerable time. 5. The Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner has remained wilfully absent from duty for the period in question to avoid to give effect to is transfer and he was engaged in seeking cancellation of transfer order. This was in spite of the fact that earlier he has been given notice that if he remains absent and does not attend the piece of posting, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against him. The Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 27.2.88 finding the misconduct against the petitioner proved, imposed penalty of punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 6. On appeal, the finding of misconduct was maintained, but the punishment was reduced to stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. This order in appeal was made on 1.6.89. 7. After the aforesaid orders were made, his case was taken up for the purpose of deciding how his period of absence from duty is to be treated and order was made on 8.9.89 by adjusting his absence from duty against leave due to him by adjusting absence from 17.4.84 to 14.8.84 (120) days against the earned leave and remaining period was adjusted against half pay leave. 8. After above order was made, a review petition was preferred against the order of Appellate Authority which was rejected on 3.4.91.Hence, this petition. 9. 8. After above order was made, a review petition was preferred against the order of Appellate Authority which was rejected on 3.4.91.Hence, this petition. 9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since by regularising the period of absence, by adjusting the same against the leave due, the misconduct of remaining absent without sanctioned leave has been condoned and therefore, no punishment could be sustained and continued thereafter. Consequently, the direction is sought for quashing the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority referred to above. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in Datar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1989 (1) 387 and an unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1978/99, Ashok Kumar Solanki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 25th April, 2001 . 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that after the disciplinary proceedings are over and the petitioner is found guilty of misconduct of remaining absent from duty and has been appropriately punished, the subsequent regularisation of the period of absence from duty, so that no break in service is created and may result in more severe punishment than what has been awarded to the petitioner, does not amount to ex-post-facto, condonation of misconduct and punishment imposed in duly conducted inquiry cannot be set at naught. 11. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, I I am of the opinion that the writ petition does not merit acceptance. The facts noticed above clearly indicate that at no point of time, the respondent had condoned the misconduct on which the petitioner was charged and punished. In fact, the enquiry under Rule 16 was initiated indicating it to be a case requiring major punishment. On the representation of the petitioner, the enquiry was converted into an enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Thus, ensuring that a minor punishment is imposed, the respondents had not shown any inclination to condone the absence from duty without leave and enquiry was duly conducted in which the petitioner participated and to punishment was imposed. On the representation of the petitioner, the enquiry was converted into an enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Thus, ensuring that a minor punishment is imposed, the respondents had not shown any inclination to condone the absence from duty without leave and enquiry was duly conducted in which the petitioner participated and to punishment was imposed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also considered and resulted in confirmation of the finding about misconduct on the part of petitioner, but taking very lenient view, the punishment was reduced. It is only after the disciplinary enquiry culminated into finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and punishment was imposed, the question of regularising the period of absence from duty arose and was taken up for consideration, which is the usual consequence. 12. In case a person remains absent from duty and the enquiry is conducted and he is visited with punishment of removal from service, the question arises for consideration of the concerned authority, haw the period of absent from duty without leave is to be treated. If it is to be treated to be period not spent on duty without adjust by granting such leave to the petitioner as may be available for grant, a break in the service of the petitioner occurs resulting in forfeiture of his all past service, and cannot be considered for any purpose in future. It is for that reason It becomes necessary to make an order for adjusting the period of absence without leave by sanctioning such leave as may be available to the delinquent for the purpose of regularising his service. Taking recourse to such a course by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered to be a case of condonation of misconduct so as to warrant nullifying the imposition of punishment as a result of disciplinary proceedings. 13. The two decisions relied on by the learned counsel also does not tell anything to the contrary to the view I have expressed. In the Bench decision of this Court in Datar Singh's case (supra), the facts were that the petitioner had been dismissed from service vide order dated June 3, 1987 ss and dismissal order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Reviewing Authority. In the Bench decision of this Court in Datar Singh's case (supra), the facts were that the petitioner had been dismissed from service vide order dated June 3, 1987 ss and dismissal order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Reviewing Authority. The Court noticed the fact that even before charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has been granted extraordinary leave and his absence from duty had been regularized. Thus, after regularisation, for the period of absence from duty, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was removed from service. The Court referred to the direction issued by the Director General of Police in that regard in which it has clearly been stated that in cases where the enquiry is conducted in relation to charge relating to wilful absence from duty, it has to be levelled before period of absence from duty is regularized. Once absence from duty has been regularised by adjusting the period of absence against leave account, in that event, the dichotomy arises that condonation of absence from duty by regularisation took place by the executive action by regularising the period of leave of absence without there being any recourse to disciplinary proceedings or its culmination, which results in imposition of punishment after it has been condoned. The Court noticed that the leave has been granted and absence from duty has been regularised even before charge-sheet was served. In these circumstances, after such regularisation, no disciplinary action lies. 14. Apparently, present is the case where the disciplinary proceeding: took place before the regularisation of the period of absence from duty took place and therefore, this decision does not help the petitioner. 15. In another decision of Ashok Kumar's case referred to above, the fact situation was similar to one noticed by the Court in Dater Singh's case wherein also the leave of absence was regularised before the enquiry wasconducted by granting him extraordinary leave without pay. The learned Single Judge also referred to decision of Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2626 , which also related to a case where matter was referred to the Disciplinary Authority after regularisation of period of absence. 16. The learned Single Judge also referred to decision of Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2626 , which also related to a case where matter was referred to the Disciplinary Authority after regularisation of period of absence. 16. As the present case is not of the nature and regularisation of the leave of period of absence has taken place only after he has been found guilty of remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly in a duly conducted disciplinary proceeding:: and has been duly punished for that, the matter has, thereafter, been considered to be dealt with for the period he remained wilfully absent from duty and in the interest of the petitioner, the absence period has been regularised by adjusting the same against the available leave. In such circumstances, no illegality can be found in imposition of punishment which is preceded with regularisation of period of leave. 17. Accordingly. the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******