Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the consequential order in pursuance to imposing of minor punishment of treating the period of suspension, as the period spent on leave of the kind due. 2. The petitioner was served with charge memo dated 24.05.1996, on the following charges: "i) The applicant was absent in the office after 3.20p.m. On 28.11.95 and did not turn up. ii) The applicant refused to receive the show cause notice. iii) The applicant argued with the superior – Commercial Tax Officer and iv) Indiscipline in work and insubordination with superior." 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner filed reply to the charge memo. Being dissatisfied, an enquiry officer was appointed. The charge Nos.1 & 4 were held to be proved, and charge No.2 was held to be not proved, whereas charge No.3 was held to be partly proved. 4. The competent authority, though agreed with the enquiry officer, but keeping in view the gravity of the charges, imposed only minor punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect, but did not decide about the period of suspension. 5. The competent authority, after imposition of punishment, issued show cause notice to petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why the period of suspension be not treated as the period spent on leave. 6. The petitioner submitted his reply by taking stand, that the proposed action was harsh, as the enquiry had continued for 799 days without there being any delay on the part of the petitioner in participating in the enquiry. 7. Though it is the discretion of the employer to take decision as to how the period spent during suspension is to be treated, once the person is held guilty of charges, but the Court can always interfere with the decision, when the decision is patently harsh and may amount to double punishment. 8. In the case in hand, on the proved charges, the competent authority thought it appropriate to impose minor punishment of stoppage of increment for three months, whereas, by treating the period of 799 days as leave of the kind due, the petitioner has been put to a great hardship. The petitioner has been denied full salary of more than 700 days. The petitioner has been denied full salary of more than 700 days. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained, being harsh amounting to double punishment, as the punishment imposed is only a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect, thus, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension, to be the period spent on duty with all consequential benefits. 10. No costs.