Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the instant Special Appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th April, 2004, dismissing the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The appellant while working as Patrolling Officer, Preventive Force, Department of Excise at Rajgarh was served with a memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules). He was asked to explain his willful absence during period 04.05.1993 to 12.05.1993. He filed a reply stating inter alia that he left Rajgarh on 4th May, 1993 to report before the District Excise Officer on 5th May, 1993. He returned to Rajgarh on 6th May, 1993. He became busy in outdoor duty, which is evident from a memo prepared at 2:30 p.m. during investigation in an excise case. Similarly on 7th May, 1993 he remained busy in another investigation in a case, which is evident from the Search Memo prepared at 3.30 p.m. Eight and Ninth May were Government holidays. On 10th May, he went out for patrolling, Similarly on 11th May, 1993 he remained busy in investigation in another case, which is evident from one of the memo prepared at 2:15 p.m. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that the appellant left the Head Quarter without permission of the superior authority. In view of the finding the Disciplinary Authority inflicted a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The punishment has been confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order inflicting penalty of stoppage of one increment. 3. It appears that though the Enquiry was initiated under Rule 17 but subsequently it was conducted under Rule 86 of the R.S.R. It appears from the enquiry report that the explanation to alleged absence of 4th May and 5th May has been found to be satisfactory. On 6th May, he has remained busy in investigation, which is evident from a memo prepared at 2:30 p.m. Simply because he could not put signatures in the Register, it cannot be said that he has remained willfully absent. A distinction must be made between Officers holding Office, which involve outdoor duties and the office duties. On 6th May, he has remained busy in investigation, which is evident from a memo prepared at 2:30 p.m. Simply because he could not put signatures in the Register, it cannot be said that he has remained willfully absent. A distinction must be made between Officers holding Office, which involve outdoor duties and the office duties. A Patrolling Officer in the Excise Department is supposed to discharge duties in the field. They may be on duty in the early hours of the day or even during the night. The 8th and 9th May were public holidays. Similarly he has given an explanation of being busy with the investigation on 10th & 11th May. The Enquiry Officer has found that he left the Head Quarter without permission on the holidays i.e. on 8th & 9th. He was not charged for leaving the Head Quarter without permission. Simply because the appellant could not put his signatures in the Register because he was busy in outdoor duty, it cannot be said that the absence was willful. On over all consideration of the entire matter, in our opinion, the explanation given by the appellant for not recording attendance in the Attendance Register is satisfactory as he was busy in the patrolling duty or in the investigation. It cannot be said that he remained willfully absent. Thus, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is not sustainable. 4. Consequently, the Special Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th April, 2004 is set aside. The order inflicting punishment of stoppage of one increment against the appellant is also set aside. No order as to cost.