ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is a constable in the Crime Branch of the Police Department of the respondent-State was proceeded against under the charge-sheet at Annexure-4 on 28th August, 2012 alleging unauthorized absence from 12th May, 2012 to 23rd May 2012 which was reported by the in-charge C.I.D. team on 16th May, 2012. The petitioner admittedly participated in the enquiry, furnished his written statement and also produced evidence in his support in the nature of C.D.R i.e. Phone call records, certain witnesses who were constables in the same department residing in the same barrack and also evidence of his illness and treatment through registered Homeopathic doctor of the locality. Petitioner was also given chance to submit his final written defence before the inquiry officer submitted his report. However, the petitioner after submission of the enquiry report has been imposed with the punishment vide order dated 15th January, 2013 by the Superintendent of Police Crime Branch C.I.D, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Annexure-8) by withholding of increment for six months which is equivalent to one black mark and it will not affect his future increment. Petitioner’s appeal has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14th August, 2013 passed by the D.I.G Police which has also been allowed by way of interlocutory application to be challenged. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also been given promotion to the rank of A.S.I on 28th August, 2012 but on account of the punishment he has not been allowed to join the promotional post. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that conduct of the petitioner did not amount to deliberate act of unauthorized absence rather the absence was on account of genuine reason of having fallen ill during the period of 12th May, 2012 till he resumed his duty on 23rd May, 2012, after only a period of 11 days. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that conduct of the petitioner did not amount to deliberate act of unauthorized absence rather the absence was on account of genuine reason of having fallen ill during the period of 12th May, 2012 till he resumed his duty on 23rd May, 2012, after only a period of 11 days. It is also submitted that the enquiry report itself shows that several witnesses have deposed in his favour, about his illness which he was facing over a period of time in the relevant part of the year and that he had also talked with In-charge of the C.I.D team on 12th May, 2012 itself at 8 a.m. C.D.R records were also called for which also shows a talk of about 30 seconds with the in-charge C.I.D team which has also been accepted by the complainant. Chitranjan Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Sub-Inspector, who used to reside in the same barrack as that of the petitioner also stated that he had orally informed the in-charge C.I.D team about his illness. However, strangely, after noticing all these, inquiry officer has opined that since no application of leave was made on his behalf therefore, it amounted the case of the misconduct i.e. dereliction of duty and negligence. It is therefore, submitted that the factual aspect of the instant case clearly shows that the petitioner’s conduct never amounted to misconduct which would warrant imposition of a punishment. The punishment in fact had serious repercussion as he has not been allowed to join the promotional post also and that has affected him adversely. 4. Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the service career of the petitioner shows several instances of absence for which punishment had been imposed upon him. The petitioner was in the habit of absenting on regular basis without any justified cause. In the instant occasion also he remained absent without moving any application. A departmental proceeding was conducted against him in which evidences were adduced and the petitioner was given chance to participate and produce his own defence as well. The inquiry officer has held him guilty as charges have been established against him as he has failed to prefer any application for seeking leave during the period in question. A departmental proceeding was conducted against him in which evidences were adduced and the petitioner was given chance to participate and produce his own defence as well. The inquiry officer has held him guilty as charges have been established against him as he has failed to prefer any application for seeking leave during the period in question. Upon consideration of the enquiry report, therefore, he has been imposed punishment which has also been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 5. Counsel for the respondent–State however, does not dispute that the charge-sheet at Annexure-4 did not refer to any previous misconduct of the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during the service period of the petitioner, he had been awarded 45 times and at the same time imposed with eight minor penalties. However, it is submitted that the impugned order of punishment should not be sustained as it is not in nature of misconduct of unauthorized absence in a deliberate manner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, this court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner did not amount to misconduct of willful and deliberate unauthorized absence. The inquiry officer himself has found during course of enquiry, upon the production of evidence, in the nature of deposition of other constables and Assistant Sub-Inspector living in the same barrack that the petitioner was really ill during the period. He had been suffering from illness intermittently in that year. The enquiry report also reveals that there is also evidence of his illness in the nature of treatment by registered doctor. The C.D.R records of the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the in-charge of the C.I.D team were also noticed by the enquiry officer which shows that he had a talk with the in-charge of C.I.D on 12th May, 2012 itself at 8 a.m. Chitranjan Kumar Srivastava, Sub-Inspector, who also used to reside with the petitioner in the barrack, has also deposed that oral information of his absence was given to the in-charge C.I.D team. In the wake of such evidences on record, simply because the petitioner could not make a proper application, the respondent would not be justified in holding that the absence of the petitioner was the act of deliberate misconduct of unauthorized absence which warranted imposition of punishment. In the wake of such evidences on record, simply because the petitioner could not make a proper application, the respondent would not be justified in holding that the absence of the petitioner was the act of deliberate misconduct of unauthorized absence which warranted imposition of punishment. The absence of the petitioner might have been dealt with in other manner also either by treating it as a period of leave or that his salary for the said period should have been curtailed on such conduct of the petitioner. It is therefore evident from the materials adduced during the enquiry that imposition of punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner is not justified. 7. The opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India And Another reported in (2012)3 SCC 178 is being quoted hereunder: “16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorized absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behavior was unbecoming of a government servant. 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. 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. 18. 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 the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 19. 18. 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 the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 19. In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was willful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty. 20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial review in a departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.V. Bijlani V. Union of India wherein this Court held; (SCC p.95, para 25) “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 8. Therefore, this court is satisfied that the impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner dated 15th January, 2013 withholding of increment for six months which is equivalent to one black mark is not warranted. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 15th January, 2013 as well as Appellate order dated 14th August, 2013 are accordingly, quashed. 10. Writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated herein above. Petition allowed.