Judgment :- V.Eswaraiah, J. The State filed this Writ of Certiorari questioning the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 22-06-2010 made in O.A.No.6598 of 2007 in partly allowing the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein insofar as in setting aside the order of punishment treating the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non and in directing to treat the period from 27-11-2003 to 16-8-2004 as compulsory wait and treat the said period as leave eligible. The 1st respondent herein questioned the punishment order dated 23-4-2007 of the Commissioner of Family Welfare, A.P, Hyderabad in imposing the punishment of a) treating the period of unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non,b) stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, which punishment was confirmed by the Government vide its Memo No.11095/VC.111.2/2007, dated 26-10-2007 in an appeal filed by her. It was the case of the 1st respondent herein that while she was working as a Principal of MPHW (F) Training School in Khammam city, the District Medical and Health Officer, Khammam surrendered her to the Commissioner of Family Welfare, A.P, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 27-11-2003. Questioning the said surrender order, the 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No.7908 of 2003 on the ground that 3rd petitioner herein is not the competent authority to surrender her. The Tribunal granted interim order on 4-8-2004 directing the Commissioner of Family Welfare to issue posting orders to the 1st respondent herein on or before 16-08-2004. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Family Welfare by order dated 16-8-2004 posted the applicant to MPHW (F) Training School, Bhadrachalam of Khammam District in the existing vacancy, but she did not join and she made a representation to consider her case for posting at Khammam instead of Bhadrachalam. As she belongs to S.C community, she approached A.P. State Commission for S.Ts and S.Cs and the Secretary of the said Commission requested the Commissioner of Family Welfare to take suitable action for posting her at Khammam and that she has been making representations to consider her case for posting at Khammam. It is not in dispute that she has not joined at her posted place at Bhadrachalam of Khammam District pursuant to the posting orders dated 16-08-2004. It is not in dispute that she has not joined at her posted place at Bhadrachalam of Khammam District pursuant to the posting orders dated 16-08-2004. Thereafter, an explanation was called for by show cause notice dated 25-2-2006 as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated for her unauthorized absence from 27-11-1993 to 25-2-2006, for which she submitted her explanation, which was rejected again directing her to join at Bhadrachalam and ultimately she jointed as Principal of MPHW (F) Training School, Bhadrachalam on 10-5-2006. Thereafter, she said to have made a representation to regularize the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as leave to which she is eligible but the Commissioner of Family Welfare issued a charge memo dated 29-06-2006 framing three charges against her asking her to submit explanation. She submitted her explanation on 18-7-2006 denying the charges and requested to take lenient view, but explanation/written statement was rejected and the Additional Director, Family Welfare was appointed as Enquiry Officer by order dated 20-9-2006. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report on 27-12-2006.The finding of the enquiry report where two charges out of three charges are proved reads as follows: * The charged officer Smt.M.Suhrulatha Devi agreed that she was on unauthorized absence and she had not applied for any kind of leave for three years. Therefore, the Charge No.1 that she is on unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 is proved. * The Charge No.2 that Smt.M.Suhrulatha Devi has not handed over charge to Dr.K.Prabhavathy i/c Principal is also proved as Smt.M.Suhrulatha Devi has stated that she has handed over charge after one year. * There is no material to prove that Smt.M.Suhrulatha Devi has collected mess charges from fresh batch students and misused the money. Therefore charge No.3 is not proved. During the course of the enquiry, the 1st respondent herein confessed that she was on unauthorized absence for about 29 months and she has not handed over the charge to the in-charge Principal for 1 ½ year. She requested to excuse her and that she will not repeat such mistakes in future and to treat the absence period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as leave period. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer came to the opinion that the said unauthorized absence is to be treated as dies non. She requested to excuse her and that she will not repeat such mistakes in future and to treat the absence period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as leave period. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer came to the opinion that the said unauthorized absence is to be treated as dies non. Accordingly the Commissioner of Family Welfare, Hyderabad accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 23-3-2007 imposed the penalty treating the period of unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non and stoppage of two increments “without cumulative effect”. The Tribunal held that there is no denial of absence of the 1st respondent herein from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 and she did not apply for leave for the said period. As she was surrendered on 27-11-2003, the Tribunal observed that she was not directed to report before the higher authority. On the other hand, she has challenged the surrender order by filing O.A.No.7908 of 2003 and the Tribunal by an interim order directed the Commissioner of Family Welfare to give posting orders before 16-8-2004, and therefore, the period from 27-11-2003 to 16-8-2004, the date on which the posting orders were issued, cannot be treated as unauthorized absence but should be treated as compulsory wait. The Tribunal further observed that even after posting order dated 16-8-2004posting her at Bhadrachalam, she did not join up to 9-5-2006, and there was no explanation why she did not join after the posting order. So at the best the unauthorized absence is only from16-8-2004 and not from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006. The Tribunal considered Note-I FR 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules with regard to the willful absence from duty not covered by any kind of leave to be treated as dies non for all purposes i.e., increment, leave and pension, and observed that in the instant case the absence has not exceeded five years so as to offend F.R 18. Though the period of unauthorized absence is treated as dies non, the absence in this case as arisen for the reason that she was surrendered by the District and Medical Health Officer, Khammam to the Commissioner of Family Welfare by proceedings dated 27-11-2003, which was questioned by her in O.A.7908 of 2003 and pursuant to the interim orders of the Tribunal dated4-8-2004 posting orders were given on 16-8-2004. Though O.A was dismissed on 22-6-2010, but as per the interim orders the posting orders are given on 16-8-2004, the period from the date of surrender from 27-11-2003 to 16-8-2004 cannot be treated as unauthorized absence, as posting orders were given on 16-8-20904. She did not join there till 9-5-2006, therefore, at the best the unauthorized absence is only from 16-8-2004 but not from 27-11-2003 as she was agitating with regard to her posting, and it is just to treat the period as leave eligible than dies non. The Rule empowers to treat the period of willful absence as dies non. That does not mean that in all cases it should be treated as dies non. The Tribunal was of the opinion that treating the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non is unjust and accordingly allowed O.A.6598 of 2007 setting aside the same and the period from 27-11-2003 to 16-8-2004 is directed to be treated as compulsory wait. Questioning the same, the State filed this writ petition. We have heard both the learned counsel at length on 17-2-2012 at the interlocutory stage and the main writ petition on 21-2-2012 and 27.2.2012. The only point that arises for consideration as to whether the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 is unauthorized absence and if it is so, should it be treated as dies non or leave. It is seen from the surrender proceedings of the District Medical and Health Officer dated 27-11-2003 that in spite of warning given to the 1st respondent herein vide memo dated 1-11-2003 to mend her ways and change her attitude towards teaching faculty and trainee students and not to give scope for complaints against her in future, there was no change in her attitude, therefore, it was felt that her services are no more required in the District in the welfare of the training students and faculty staff, who are facing mental agony in smooth running of the administration and as such she was surrendered to the Commissioner of Family Welfare whoinstructed her to hand over the complete charge of the post of the Principal to Dr. K. Prabhavathi, Medical Officer who was placed on full additional charge in the post of the 1st respondent herein until further orders. K. Prabhavathi, Medical Officer who was placed on full additional charge in the post of the 1st respondent herein until further orders. Thus, by the said order while surrendering the 1st respondent herein, the 3rd petitioner herein also requested to hand over charge to the successor and the said Dr. K. Prabhavathi was requested to take complete charge and submit compliance report. The said order was received by the 1st respondent herein and the same was questioned before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 4-8-2004 directed the Commissioner of Family Welfare to give posting orders before 16-8-2004. The Commissioner of Family Welfare by his orders dated 16-8-2004 in Rc.No.6865/FW.F3/2003 gave posting orders to the 1st respondent herein posting her as a Principal of MPHW (F) Training School, Bhadrachalam in the existing vacancy pending enquiry against her. She was directed to join the duty immediately after proper relief at her present station within 15 days. But, she did not join as Principal of MPHW (F) Training School, Bhadrachalam. Neither she has handed over the charge to the successor in charge Principal MPHW (F) Training School, Khammam nor did she join at Bhadrachalam in spite of the posting orders pursuant to the interim orders of the Tribunal dated 4-8-2004. In fact, O.A.No.7808 filed by the 1st respondent herein questioning the surrender order was dismissed for default by order dated 27-8-2007. If that be so, the interim order passed by the Tribunal is merged with the final order dated 27-8-2008 resulting in dismissal of the writ petition, and thus, the surrender order of the District Medical & Health Officer dated 27-11-2003 has become final. Having questioned the said surrender order dated 27-11-2003 unsuccessfully in the said O.A, it is not open for the 1st respondent to question the legality and validity of the said surrender order. Ultimately, she joined at transferred place on 10-5-2006 only, and admittedly neither she applied for leave nor gave charge to the successor at Khammam and she never reported before the Commissioner of Family Welfare for her posting order. On the other hand, she questioned the surrender order, which was not at all interfered with by the Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that she was not on unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006. On the other hand, she questioned the surrender order, which was not at all interfered with by the Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that she was not on unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006. Under Fundamental Rule 9 (13) when a Government servant on return from leave has compulsorily to wait for orders of posting, such periods of waiting should be treated as duty and during such periods will be entitled to pay. FR 9 (13) is not applicable in the instant case, as it cannot be said that on return from leave she was not given any posting orders. Had the 1st respondent herein reported before the Commissioner of Family Welfare, she would have been given posting orders immediately. Of course, till the posting orders are given, the period from the date of her relieve to the date of her joining will be treated as waiting period treating on duty. But, in the instant case, neither she gave charge nor reported to the Commissioner of Family Welfare pursuant to the surrender order. Having questioned the surrender order, she failed to succeed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein submitted that as per Note-1 F.R 18, willful absence from duty not covered by any kind of leave will be treated as dies non for all purposes i.e., increment, leave and pension and in the instance there is no willful absence from the duty as she has been questioning the surrender of her post by the District Medical and Health Officer to the Commissioner of Family Welfare. It is stated that even though she could not succeed in getting the surrender order set aside, still it cannot be said that absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 is willful. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal rightly resolved the dispute in question, and therefore, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is filed by the State to avoid the contempt proceedings filed by the 1st respondent for non-compliance of the orders of the Tribunal, that too with delay, and therefore, there are no reasons warranting to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is filed by the State to avoid the contempt proceedings filed by the 1st respondent for non-compliance of the orders of the Tribunal, that too with delay, and therefore, there are no reasons warranting to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the order of punishment treating the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non is rightly set aside by the Tribunal, as the period during which the 1st respondent did not report to the Commissioner of Family Welfare cannot be treated as willful absence. The surrender order of the 1st respondent by the District Medical and Health Officeris a new measurein service law and she is not on deputation nor she was surrendered to the parent department and it is for the head of the department alone to transfer or take any disciplinary action, and therefore, the surrender proceedings are illegal and unsustainable. It is stated that under Rule 2 (14) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the said period shall be treated as a duty as a member of a service and under Rule 38 of the said Rules any posting and transfer shall be by the appointing authority or his delegate, and therefore, the surrender order is illegal and unsustainable. The Tribunal in its discretion and wisdom exercised its jurisdiction to grant relief and the said direction is not in violation of any Rule and it is in accordance with the service conditions, regulations, general and specific rules as well as fundamental Rules. It is further stated that treating the said period as dies non and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect amounts to punishing doubly. We are unable to accept the said contention as the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect from 10-5-2006 is distinct and different from treating the period of unauthorized absence from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non in accordance with the Rules. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in KRUSHNAKANT B PARMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA 2012 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 46and submitted that mere unauthorized absence from the duty does not amount to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant, unless the same is willful and not because of compelling circumstances. In the absence of the disciplinary authority recording a finding about the absence from the duty was willful, such employee cannot be dismissed from the service treating the said period as unauthorized absence. In the said case for the charge framed against the employee for the alleged unauthorized absence, an explanation was submitted explaining the reasons of his absence for certain period, for which he had applied for leave. The question that arose for consideration in the said judgment is “Whether the employee was unauthorisedly absented from the duty for certain periods thereby violated the conduct rules”. The relevant portion of the same reads as under; “...... 16..The Question whether unauthorized absence from duty amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is willful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. 18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” In the said case, it was the defence of the employee that he was prevented from attending the duty by his superior who prevented him to sign the attendance register and in support of said contention he has filed 11 exhibits and in fact when his superior was cited as witness, he refused to appear before the Enquiry Officer and the said defence was not properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority. In those circumstances, the appeal of the employer was allowed setting aside the dismissal order directing for reinstatement with 50 % backwages. In those circumstances, the appeal of the employer was allowed setting aside the dismissal order directing for reinstatement with 50 % backwages. But in the present case, admittedly the first respondent did not apply for any leave and the charge relating to his unauthorized absence was accepted by her and the same was proved as willful absence, therefore the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, has no application to the facts of the present case. A perusal of the enquiry report makes it clear that the 1st respondent admitted to a query during the course of enquiry stating that the surrender proceedings of the District Medical and Health Officer dated 27-11-2003 are communicated to her on 29-11-2003, but she did not report to the Commissioner of Family Welfare due to the mental agony and she is afraid of giving joining report to the Commissioner of Family Welfare as she may be posted somewhere else. For a specific question, whether she applied leave, she stated that she did not apply for any leave. When it was asked that whether she has reported at her transferred place at Bhadrachalam, it is stated that she has not reported to the transferred place at Bhadrachalam. She did not apply for leave even after issuing the posting orders at Bhadrachalam. She also accepted that she is absent from duty from 30-11-2003 to 9-5-2006, for 29 months. In view of her own admissions during the course of enquiry proceedings, the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent are without any basis. Her absence from joining duty cannot be treated as the duty as the said period is not coming in any of the contingencies of duty as defined in Rule 2 (14) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. Insofar as the contention that the surrender proceedings passed by the District Medical and Health Officer to the Commissioner of Family Welfare, it is stated that having questioned the said order unsuccessfully and the said O.A filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed, the same is binding on the 1st respondent, and therefore, it is not open for the 1st respondent to re-agitate the same. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the various Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent are not relevant and have no application to the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the various Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent are not relevant and have no application to the facts of the case. Admittedly, she has neither applied for the leave nor succeeded in the O.A filed by her questioning the surrender order. She neither gave charge to the successor at Khammam nor joined the duty at the transferred place of Bhadrachalam pursuant to the posting orders given pursuant to the interim orders of the Tribunal or applied for any leave and the said O.A was ultimately dismissed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that her absence from the duty not covered by grant of leave is willful and the said period was rightly treated as dies non by the Disciplinary Authority. Insofar as punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the Tribunal confirmed the said punishment and the said order of the Tribunal is not questioned by the applicant/1st respondent herein but the Government have only questioned the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority treating the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an error insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority treating the period from 27-11-2003 to 9-5-2006 as dies non. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs.