JUDGEMENT 1. On allegations of dereliction in discharge of duties the petitioner was charge- sheeted and proceeded against. The enquiry report came to be submitted when he has been penalized with stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect which has been affirmed in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from the enquiry report that he had taken the defence of being unwell which has not been disbelieved, but the enquiry officer left an inconclusive opinion on the ground that the doctor who had issued the prescriptions produced by the petitioner did not confirm the same despite being asked to do so. Even the witness who served the notice of the proceedings upon the petitioner had deposed that the petitioner appeared unwell. 3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the punishment being minor, no infirmity in the departmental proceeding being alleged, the impugned orders warrant no interference. 4. The enquiry officer holds that it appears that due to his illness the petitioner could not appear for duty. He then opines that the petitioner should have made his superiors aware of the same. 5. For an order of punishment to be passed in departmental proceedings there has to be a positive finding of guilt. A speculative enquiry report based on conjectures and surmises of the desired course of action without a finding that his defence of illness and the medical prescriptions submitted were not genuine and not acceptable, the order of punishment is not sustainable. 6. The impugned orders dated 20.12.2006 and 3.9.2009 are, therefore, set aside. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. 7. The application is allowed.