Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By Instant petition, petitioner has assailed validity of Order dated 16.04.1992 (Annexure 14) whereby he has been inflicted with penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect in disciplinary inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") so also order dated 07.04.1993 (Annexure 16) whereby appellate authority rejected his appeal against impugned penalty. 2. Petitioner while working as Junior Supervisor (Handloom) submitted an application on 09.08.1990 for grant of optional leave on 13.08.1990, casual leave from 16.08.1990 to 18.08.1990 with permission to leave head quarter from 11.08.1990 to 19/08/1990 and as per which he was required to resume back on duty on 19.08.1990 but because of illness he resumed duty on 111.1990. After he resumed duties, he submitted his sickness alongwith fitness certificates in support of his absence, so also copies of intimation sent by him during absence period. 3. Due to alleged absence, petitioner was placed under suspension Under Rule 13 of CCA Rules vide order dated 210.1990 (Annexure ) and was served with charge-sheet dated 312.1990 (Annexure 4) under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, with the allegation that he remained absent from duty without prior permission from 10.08.1990, which was a misconduct on his part. 4. Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 17.06.1991 and who submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 30.07.1991. 4. Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 17.06.1991 and who submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 30.07.1991. Indisputably, copy of this inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority, taking note of finding recorded by Inquiry Officer in his report, held the petitioner guilty of absence for the period from 10.08.1990, and inflicted penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 16.04.1992 (Annexure 14), against which petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, categorically pointing out about non-supply copy of inquiry report which resulted in seriously causing prejudice to him, and further pointing out that leave applications were sent to competent authority inter-alia on 01.09.1990, 17.09.1990 and 111.1990 and that apart, medical sickness-cum-fitness certificates for relevant period were submitted to the respondents authority, as such it was not a case of wilful absence from duty and mere absence will not hold him to guilty of misconduct, for which no finding has been recorded by disciplinary authority-in the absence of which, it cannot be said to be case of misconduct on the part of petitioner, but the appellate authority rejected his appeal despite supporting documents on record, vide order dated 07.04.1993 (Annexure 16). Hence, this petition. 5. Counsel for petitioner urged that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and it was a salient document, on which disciplinary authority proceeded in holding him guilty thereby it has caused serious prejudice to him. Counsel further contended that initially the petitioner proceeded on leave after seeking permission from the authority concerned and that apart, for his illness, he sent intimations from time to time, and reported to resume duty on 111.1990 alongwith sickness and fitness certificates duly verified by medical officer for the period in question, but neither disciplinary authority nor appellant authority considered/examined the same, and failed to record a finding of wilful absence, in such circumstances, period of absence in no manner can be said to be a misconduct nor can be punished with impugned penalty, and therefore, orders of disciplinary as well as appellate authority are not legally sustainable. 6. 6. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition denying the case of petitioner and inter alia pointing out that petitioner submitted leave application on 09.08.1990 and was supposed to resume duty on 19.08.1990 but in fact, returned back on duty on 111.1990, almost after three months and failed to join despite notices, therefore was placed under suspension and disciplinary inquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, in which he was held guilty of wilful absence and consequently punished vide impugned order of disciplinary authority and that apart, no new facts were brought in appeal, however, appellate authority examined entire record and upheld the finding of guilt recorded by disciplinary authority, in such circumstances there was no illegality in procedure conducted during inquiry under the CCA Rules and moreover, no prejudice has been shown by petitioner to have caused on account of non-supply of inquiry report, as such finding recorded by disciplinary so also appellate authority being duly supported by material on record, does not require any interference by this Court. 7. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance perused material on record. Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules ("RSR") which directly deals with period of absence reads as under: “Rule 86. Absence after expiry of leave.-(1) A Government servant who is absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority shall be treated to have remained wilfully absent from duty, and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extra ordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. .(2) (a) A Government servant who remains absent from duty after the expiry of the sanctioned leave or after communication of refusal of extension of leave is not entitled to any pay and allowances for the period of such absence and the period of such absence shall be commuted into extra ordinary leave unless on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the period of absence is regularised by grant of leave due by the authority to grant leave. .(b) Willfulabsence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. .(b) Willfulabsence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. .(3) Notwithstanding provisions contained in Sub-rules (1) & (2) above the disciplinary authority may initiate departmental proceeding under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against a Government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. .(4) Unless the State Government, in view of the special circumstances of the case, determines otherwise a State Government employee who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, whether with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from service. Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to the employee before the provisions of the sub-rule are invoked.” 8. Once the Government servant applies for grant of any kind of leave admissible under the RSR, the competent authority must carry out its statutory duty to either sanction or reject the leave applied for so as to resort to distinct statutory duty enshrined under other rules subsequently either to treat absence wilful under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 86, ibid, or to regularise his case on satisfactory reasons being furnished by grant of leave due or commutation into extra ordinary leave as provided under Rule 86(1). 9. Thus, under Rule 86(3) of RSR disciplinary authority is competent to initiate departmental proceeding under CCA Rules against a Government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absence from duty is proved against him, penalty can be inflicted. But mere absence from duty as such is not misconduct unless it is wilful. 10. Rule 86(1) Prescribes that if Government servant remains absent from duty "without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned" by competent authority, that can be treated to have remained wilfully absentee. 11. In instant case, petitioner was served with charge-sheet only with allegation that he remained on leave from 10.08.1990 and indisputably, fact remains that he reported for duty on 111.1990. Question arises as to whether period of his absence is wilful or not. 11. In instant case, petitioner was served with charge-sheet only with allegation that he remained on leave from 10.08.1990 and indisputably, fact remains that he reported for duty on 111.1990. Question arises as to whether period of his absence is wilful or not. In the course of inquiry, documents relating to his sickness for the period from 16.08.1990 to 010.1990, 010.1990 to 210.1990 and 210.1990 to 111.1990, were produced in defence; and it has come on record also that intimation was sent by him on three different occasions on 01.09.1990, 17.09.1990 and 111.1990 by post card, as is evident from narration of facts stated by disciplinary authority in order of punishment, but while taking note of these documents the disciplinary authority recorded a finding that so far a medical sickness certificates are concerned they were received by official concerned authority only on 111.1990 when petitioner returned back on duty; and on these premises genuineness of documents were doubted and that apart, after he reported for duty, prescribed leave application form was not submitted in the absence of which leave applied for could not have been regularised and sanctioned by authority concerned. On such premise, disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of absence but still no finding was recorded whether the period of his absence was wilful and it was a case of misconduct, for which he was held guilty and punished vide impugned order. 12. In my considered opinion, once documents/sickness and fitness certificates were furnished by petitioner alongwith intimations sent by him from time to time, receipt whereof was not disputed by respondent in such circumstances, mere absence which albeit was not disputed, cannot be said to be wilful in facts situation of present case (Supra), and that apart, disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of absence and not of wilful absence, which is precondition as provided under Rule 86(2)(b) of RSR. 13. It is indeed to say that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right but if a Government servant applies for leave in compelling circumstances such as sudden sickness either of himself or family members or for the cause having arisen beyond control, may be from the date of application of leave applied for or from future date, then certainly next step and obligation shifted on competent authority either to sanction or reject leave. Once the Government servant applies for leave, how could he be expected to await for sanction which is the act beyond his control, because if sanctioning authority despite having received application for grant of leave, does not care to take decision on leave application, the very purpose of applying for leave will be defeated. 14. It is a case where sanctioning authority did not care to exercise powers either to sanction or reject leave applied for on resuming and return on duty on 111.1990 and further failed to exercise its statutory duty under Rules 86(1) and (2) of RSR, rather it has blamed the petitioner by issuing impugned charge-sheet on 312.1990. 15. So far as submissions made by Counsel with regard to non-supply of copy of inquiry report is concerned, certainly it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , as per which disciplinary authority in ordinary course was under obligation to supply copy of inquiry report before recording of guilt against delinquent employee. In my opinion, what has been observed by inquiry officer in his report was never made available to petitioner and was the sole premises, on which disciplinary authority has proceeded in recording finding of guilty which has seriously caused prejudice to him. In my opinion, in instant case, non-supply of copy of inquiry report to delinquent petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice and despite a specific plea was raised by him in his appeal in Para 10 (Annexure 15), was not considered even by appellate authority while rejecting his appeal vide impugned order (Annexure 16). 16. Apart from plea about non-supply of copy of inquiry report, which was specifically raised in memo of appeal by petitioner, he further raised grounds for unfair consideration of the fact that despite intimations sent at all stages, his absence in no manner can be said to be wilful, and narration of facts was made very specific in Para 3 of appeal but despite the same, appellate authority has reiterated finding records by disciplinary authority while rejecting his appeal. 17. 17. Such a contention requires acceptance for the reasons that from a bare look at Rule 30(2), CCA Rules, this clearly emerges that appellate authority is required to consider independently as to whether inquiry has been held in accordance with Rules and principles of natural justice and if there is any violation of rules or procedure or any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent, while deciding appeal preferred by delinquent against infliction of penalty. That apart it has also to be examined as to whether penalty inflicted is adequate or at all commensurate with charge found proved and if satisfied, may reconsider about penalty to be inflicted upon delinquent. 18. Recording of reasons by appellate authority has been considered to be mandatory and an obligation has been casted upon it to pass speaking order. Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules has been examined by this Court in Prabhulal Agarwal vs. State, 1991 (2) WLC 469 (Raj). 19. A bare perusal of order (Annexure 16) passed by appellate authority makes it precise that it does not disclose application of mind on the part of appellate authority and in my opinion it is not in conformity with Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules. The appellate order completely fails to satisfy basic requirement of passing order by appellate authority in consonance with Rule 30(2) and thus in my view, the appellate authority has failed to examine findings recorded by disciplinary authority while affirming finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer and taking decision of inflicting impugned penalty upon petitioner. 20. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment (Annexure 14) withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and so also the order (Annexure 16) passed by appellate authority both are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled of consequential benefits flowing from quashing of order of punishment impugned. All exercise to comply with order be made within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.