Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The following substantial question of law falls for adjudication by this Court : "Whether the imposition of any (other) punishment is permissible after the period of absence stands regularised by conversion into leave of the kind due." 2. Concededly, the period of absence of the plaintiff-appellant stands regularized by conversion into leave of the kind due. In the light thereof, the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect could not have been imposed. This view is supported by the law laid down by this Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2001 (20) RSJ 175 : [2001(2) SLR 696 (Pb. & Hrv.)]. In that ruling, this Court relied upon State of Punjab v. Bakhshish Singh, 1998 (5) SLR 625. 3. The reliance placed by the learned DAG Haryana upon Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 574 : [2004(7) SLR 2 (SC)], is mis conceived, inasmuch as the matter aforementioned pertained to the interpretation of what constituted a mis-conduct under the relevant standing orders of Delhi Transport Corporation. That judicial pronouncement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The substantial question of law is, accordingly, answered as under : If the period of absence of an employee has been regularised by conversion into leave of the kind due, he cannot be punished again for that very lapse i.e. absence from duty. 5. In the light of the above legal exposition, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned orders, passed by the Punishing Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, are quashed. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant shall stand decreed in toto, with costs of the cause.