JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the respondent-Board in the year 1983. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 11.04.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sr. XEN in the month of September, 2002. He was admitted in I.G.M.C. on 04.06.2005. He was discharged on 16.06.2005. The fitness certificate was issued to him on 23.07.2005. He joined his duties on 25.07.2005. He submitted an application for sanctioning the leave to the Controlling Officer, which was duly sanctioned. He was also reimbursed the medical claim. He developed pain in the chest on 30.07.2005 and was rushed to I.G.M.C. on 30.07.2005. 1. He submitted leave application along with station leave to the Director (Commercial). He was directed by the Chief Engineer (Commercial), HPSEB, Shimla to appear before the medical Board to be constituted by the C.M.O., Shimla on 25.08.2005 and 07.09.2005. He was also sent telegrams on 30.09.2005, 20.10.2005 and 02.12.2005. He also took treatment from Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak. He was placed under suspension on 21.01.2006 vide Annexure P-4. He obtained Annexure P-5, dated 18.02.2006 from I.G.M.C., Shimla. It was certified vide Annexure P-5 that petitioner's absence from duty w.e.f. 01.08.2005 to 11.11.2005 was absolutely necessary for restoration of his health. Petitioner has also submitted a certificate issued by Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak on 04.01.2006 along with Annexure P-5, dated 18.02.2006, certifying therein that he was examined vide MOD No. 102360 on 12.11.2005 and it was reviewed on 30.11.2005, 14.12.2005 and 31.12.2005. He was advised rest from 12.11.2005 onwards. Thereafter, he submitted his joining report on 20.02.2006 vide Annexure P-6. He filed a representation seeking revocation of suspension on 27.02.2006. He was served with a memorandum on 21.09.2006 vide Annexure P-8, whereby the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Article of Charge reads thus: "That the said Er. Mahesh Dahiya while functioning as Sr. Executive Engineer (Elect.) in the office of the Chief Engineer (Comm.), HPSEB, Shimla-4 during the period from 2005-06 proceeded on leave on 30.7.05 on medical ground. Er. Dahiya was repeatedly directed vide Chief Engineer (Comm.), HPSEB, Shimla-4 letter dated 25.8.05, 7.9.05, 26.10.05 and 2.12.05 to appear before the Medical Board but he failed to do so. Thus, Dr. Dahiya has willfully absented himself from official duties and has disobeyed the directions of his superiors. Er. Dahiya was repeatedly directed vide Chief Engineer (Comm.), HPSEB, Shimla-4 letter dated 25.8.05, 7.9.05, 26.10.05 and 2.12.05 to appear before the Medical Board but he failed to do so. Thus, Dr. Dahiya has willfully absented himself from official duties and has disobeyed the directions of his superiors. He has therefore acted in a manner which is unbecoming of an officer of his status. The said Er. Mahesh Dahiya, Sr. Executive Engineer (Elect.) has thus violated the provisions of Rule-3 (1)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and which made him liable for disciplinary action under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules- 1965. 2. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 15.10.2006. The suspension period of the petitioner was extended on 06.12.2007. The Presenting Officer submitted the brief to the Inquiry Officer vide Annexure P-17. Petitioner submitted the written brief of defence vide Annexure P-18. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 29.12.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 02.04.2008 alongwith the copy of inquiry report and the decision of WTM, dated 25.02.2008. Petitioner has made a representation against the same on 15.04.2008. He was removed from service on 06.07.2009. He made a representation on 21.07.2009. The punishment dated 06.07.2009, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, was converted into compulsory retirement on 25.08.2009 vide Annexure P-25. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 09.09.2009 before the appellate authority. The same was dismissed by the appellate authority on 10.12.2009. 3. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the inquiry has not been held as per the mandatory provisions of Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. He further argued that the inquiry report is neither speaking nor detailed. He then argued that the disciplinary authority ought to have supplied the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the penalty of removal was to be imposed upon the petitioner. He then argued that the representation made by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered in right perspective. He also contended that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are laconic and non-speaking. He lastly contended that there was no occasion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against his client, since he was sick and has obtained medical certificates. He also contended that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are laconic and non-speaking. He lastly contended that there was no occasion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against his client, since he was sick and has obtained medical certificates. His leave was duly sanctioned and his medical claims have been reimbursed. 4. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has strenuously argued that the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. She has justified the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, dated 25.08.2009. She has finally contended that the petitioner has remained willfully absent from duties and the charges were duly proved against him. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has been charged for not obeying the orders of Chief Engineer (Commercial), HPSEB, Shimla dated 25.08.2005, 07.09.2005, 26.10.2005 and 02.12.2005, whereby he was directed to appear before the medical Board. Thus, according to the charge sheet, the petitioner has willfully absented himself from duties and has disobeyed the directions of his superiors. 7. Petitioner was admitted in I.G.M.C. on 04.06.2005. His disease was diagnosed as "Loculated Fluied Collections (Rt) Pleural cavity echo Tubural (Pleural Effusion (T.B.)). He remained in the hospital up to 16.06.2005. He was issued fitness certificate on 23.07.2005, pursuant to which he joined his duties on 25.07.2005. He submitted leave application to the Controlling Officer, which was duly sanctioned. His medical claims have also been reimbursed. He developed pain in the chest on 30.07.2005 and was further taken to I.G.M.C., Shimla on 30.07.2005. He has also submitted leave application to the Director (Commercial) along with station leave. The Board was well aware about the health of petitioner and, despite this, he was forced to appear before the medical Board on 25.08.2005, 07.09.2005, 26.10.2005 and 02.12.2005. Petitioner was suffering from serious ailment. It is not discernable from the records why the Board was insisting that the petitioner should appear before the Medical Board once the leave has been duly sanctioned and his medical claims were also reimbursed. As noticed above, the petitioner has also submitted application for leave and station leave on 30th July, 2005. He was put under suspension on 21.01.2006. The review has to take place as per CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 after 90 days, but, in the present case, arbitrarily the date of suspension was extended. As noticed above, the petitioner has also submitted application for leave and station leave on 30th July, 2005. He was put under suspension on 21.01.2006. The review has to take place as per CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 after 90 days, but, in the present case, arbitrarily the date of suspension was extended. This act of the respondent-Board was in contravention of Rule-10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the memorandum dated 21.09.2006 on 15.10.2006. The inquiry report is at page No. 93 of the paperbook. The Inquiry Officer has examined one Shri S.D. Rattan, Director (Commercial) as PW-1. Shri Brij Lal Kiashta as PW-2. Petitioner has produced Engineer P.C. Sardana as D.W. 8. According to PW-1, Er. S.D. Rattan, petitioner has disobeyed the orders of his superior by not appearing before the medical Board. According to him, the medical certificate of the petitioner was not available on 30th July, 2005. 9. Now, as far as PW-2 Sh. Brij Lal Kiashta is concerned, he has categorically stated that the petitioner has joined his duties in the Circle office on 20.02.2006. 10. DW Engineer P.C. Sardana has testified that petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis during June/July, 2005. He has shown the medical certificate and discharge slip to him. He has also admitted that 30.07.2005 was his last day in the office before superannuation. According to him, the petitioner has shown his inability to attend the party as he was rushed to the hospital. The inquiry officer, while concluding his inquiry, has not at all discussed the prescription slip dated 16.06.2005, issued by the I.G.M.C., discharge slip dated 23.07.2005 issued by the I.G.M.C., medical certificate dated 25.07.2005, prescription slip dated 30.07.2005, issued by the I.G.M.C., medical certificate dated 18.02.2006, certificate dated 04.01.2006, issued by Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak and medical certificate issued by Manchanada Chest Care Clinic, dated 16.02.2006. It was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to look into these documents, veracity of which has never been denied even by the department. The inquiry officer has only concluded that the petitioner has disobeyed the orders dated 25.08.2005, 07.09.2005, 26.10.2005 and 02.12.2005 by not presenting himself before the Medical Board. The explanation given by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration by the inquiry officer. The inquiry should be reasoned and must show due application of mind. The inquiry officer has only concluded that the petitioner has disobeyed the orders dated 25.08.2005, 07.09.2005, 26.10.2005 and 02.12.2005 by not presenting himself before the Medical Board. The explanation given by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration by the inquiry officer. The inquiry should be reasoned and must show due application of mind. The inquiry officer has to discuss the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary. 11. In the instant case, the inquiry officer has only discussed the version of department and has over looked the defence of petitioner. The prescription slips and medical certificates have been issued to the petitioner by the I.G.M.C., Shimla, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak and Manchanda Chest Care Clinic. According to Annexure P-5, petitioner's absence was absolutely necessary for restoration of his health w.e.f. 01.08.2005 to 11.11.2005. As per the certificate issued by the Professor & Head, Department of Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, dated 04.01.2006, the petitioner has been examined on 12.11.2005 and reviewed on 30.11.2005, 14.12.2005 and 31.12.2005. According to the medical certificate dated 04.01.2006, petitioner was suffering from Bronchial Asthma (Acute exacerbation), Resolving Pleural effusion, Restless leg syndrome & drug dependence. He was advised rest from 12.11.2005 onwards. The Manchanda Chest Care Clinic has also issued a certificate on 16.02.2006 covering the period w.e.f. 11.01.2006 to 16.02.2006. Petitioner has submitted his joining on 20.02.2006. He has submitted the certificate to the concerned authority. 12. It will also be apt at this stage to mention that the petitioner has filed written brief vide Annexure P-18, dated 30.10.2007 before the inquiry officer. The written brief is very detailed. He has given the circumstances under which he could not join his duties. The pleas raised by the petitioner in his brief have not been discussed at all by the inquiry officer. In his written brief, the petitioner has highlighted that the Director (Commercial) was biased. According to him, his suspension was also unjustified and there was inordinate delay in issuance of charge sheet. 13. According to Rule-32 (2) (d) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the petitioner was also entitled to extraordinary leave up to eighteen months since he was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis. This aspect has also been overlooked by the Board. Petitioner has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner. 13. According to Rule-32 (2) (d) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the petitioner was also entitled to extraordinary leave up to eighteen months since he was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis. This aspect has also been overlooked by the Board. Petitioner has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner. It was not the case of the respondent-Board that the petitioner was not suffering from this serious ailment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The certificates issued by the I.G.M.C., Shimla, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak and Manchanda Chest Care Clinic cannot be doubted till something contrary was brought on record. In fact this Court has examined the doctor, who has issued Annexure P-5. According to him, this certificate has been issued to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and after taking into consideration his ailments. He has satisfactorily explained the circumstances before this Court on 03.11.2011. Petitioner has never been apprised that his leave application has been rejected. It is settled law that every willful absence will not constitute misconduct. 14. In the instant case, the petitioner has given reasons for not joining duties, which has been overlooked by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. 15. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. The inquiry officer has submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 29.12.2007. The inquiry report ought to have been supplied by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation by pointing out the shortcomings, deficiencies and violation of Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 before the disciplinary authority makes up its mind to impose the penalty. The purpose of supplying the copy of inquiry report to a delinquent is to enable him to make a representation by pointing out the shortcomings, deficiencies and violation of the mandatory provisions of rules, under which the inquiry is conducted. 16. In this case, the Whole Time Members of the Board in its meeting held on 25.02.2008, which is at page No. 101 of the paper-book had already made up its mind to award major penalty of removal from service. The findings of the Whole Time Members of the Board in 354th meeting are as follows: "The findings of the Enquiry report were accepted by the WTM and it was decided to award major penalty of removal from service after following proper codal formalities." 17. The findings of the Whole Time Members of the Board in 354th meeting are as follows: "The findings of the Enquiry report were accepted by the WTM and it was decided to award major penalty of removal from service after following proper codal formalities." 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727 have held that the copy of inquiry report has to be supplied to an employee before the disciplinary authority makes up his mind to impose penalty. The purpose of supplying the copy of inquiry report is to enable an individual to represent against the short-comings, deficiencies and violation of mandatory rules during the course of departmental inquiry. Their Lordships have held as under:- "The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary, authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it." 18. The copy of the inquiry report along with its memorandum has been supplied to the petitioner on 02.04.2008. Since the WTM has already made up its mind to impose a major penalty upon the petitioner, even without supplying the copy of the inquiry report to him, he has definitely been prejudiced by the WTM order on 25.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with office order dated 6th July, 2009, whereby he was offered an opportunity to make a representation on the quantum of penalty, i.e., removal from service. The whole Time Members have given an undue importance to a very trivial fact as reflected in order dated 06.07.2009. According to WTM, the petitioner has applied for station leave on 30.07.2005, but the medical certificate issued by the I.G.M.C. could not cover the period w.e.f. 01.08.2005 to 11.11.2005. Petitioner has filed a representation against the order dated 06.07.2009 vide Annexure P-24 on 21.07.2009. According to WTM, the petitioner has applied for station leave on 30.07.2005, but the medical certificate issued by the I.G.M.C. could not cover the period w.e.f. 01.08.2005 to 11.11.2005. Petitioner has filed a representation against the order dated 06.07.2009 vide Annexure P-24 on 21.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 25.08.2009 vide Annexure P-25. The disciplinary authority has not taken into consideration the representation made by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2009 in right perspective. The grounds raised in the representation were required to be taken into consideration in-depth by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected vide Annexure P-1, dated 10.12.2009. Petitioner has raised as many as 17 grounds in his memorandum of appeal. However, the same have also not been considered in accordance with law by the appellate authority. The issues raised in the appeal were required to be discussed at length. 19. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the Bar that the case of petitioner was also considered for the post of SE, but the same has been kept in a sealed cover. 20. In the instant case, neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their minds while passing the orders. The orders passed by them are laconic. They ought to have passed reasoned, detailed and self speaking orders. 21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while removing an employee, if reasons are not recorded, the order is vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Prakash Kumar Tandon (2009) 2 SCC 541 have held that if the disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted fairly, presumption can be drawn that this caused prejudice to the charged employee. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the alleged loss caused to the Railways was negligible and mere marginal allowances are permitted for measurement of "scantlings and planks". 14. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the alleged loss caused to the Railways was negligible and mere marginal allowances are permitted for measurement of "scantlings and planks". 14. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the Tiribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that the Said Mr. Walia should have been examined as a witness. 15. The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry officer is a quasijudicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonable which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. 17. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. 18. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan this Court has held that non-compliance with the principles of natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference." 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 have held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Their Lordships have further held that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must pass reasoned orders. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Their Lordships have further held that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must pass reasoned orders. Their Lordships have further held that the enquiry report based on conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained. Their Lordships have also held that that suspicion howsoever high cannot be a substitute for legal proof and though the Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable, the inquiry has to be conducted according to principles of natural justice. 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 have held that an enquiry has to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. The finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 25. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 10 SCC 539 have held that the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that charge framed against delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be ipse dixit of enquiry officer. Their Lordships have held as under: "16. We have to proceed keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a Government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. It cannot be ipse dixit of enquiry officer. Their Lordships have held as under: "16. We have to proceed keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a Government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry re-post must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. (See Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. H.C. Goel, Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon.)" 26. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr., JT 2012 (2) SC 352 have held as under: "13. The Inquiry Officer noticed the aforesaid facts and held the appellant was unauthorisedly absent between 3rd October, 1995 and 7th November, 1995; 9th November, 1995 and 10th December, 1995; 10th December, 1995 and 2nd August, 1995. However, while coming to such contention, the authority failed to decide whether such absence amounted to misconduct. The evidence led by the appellant in support of his claim that he was prevented to sign the attendance register and to perform duty though noticed the Inquiry Officer on presumption and surmises, held the charge proved. 14. Rule 3 (1)(ii) and Rule 3 (1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, relates to all time maintaining integrity, devotion to duty and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant and reads as follows: "Rule 3-General. (1) Every Government servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant." 15. (1) Every Government servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant." 15. In the case of appellant referring to unauthorized absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion of duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a Government servant. 22. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was willful, no such finding has been given by the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palampur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3rd October, 1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, J.D., SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of Telephone calls dated 29th September, 1995, etc. but such defence and evidence were ignored and on the basos of irrelevant fact and surmises the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty." 27. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-25, dated 25.08.2009 and Annexure P-1, dated 10.12.2009 are quashed and set aside. The respondent-Board is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits. Respondent-Board is also directed to open the sealed cover and promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer, if he is found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.