Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. The imputations of misconduct against the petitioner herein are comprised in Annexure P-1. The disciplinary authority had ordered the holding of an inquiry against the delinquent/petitioner herein for his purported misconduct comprised in Annexure P-1. On a consideration of the material as laid both by the Presenting Officer and by the defence before the Inquiry Officer, the latter concluded that the imputations of misconduct against the writ petitioner herein stood proved only qua charge No.1. The disciplinary authority accepted the conclusions and findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, under Annexure P-2, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reducing the delinquent/petitioner herein to the lowest stage of Rs. 3120/- basic pay of his pay scale i.e. Rs. 3120-5160 with immediate effect, besides barring him from earning increments for a period of four years. Moreover period of absence of duty w.e.f 17.12.1997 to 5.9.1999 and from 29.10.1999 till his joining at Area Office Nahan on 1.4.2000 was directed to be treated as dies-non. 2. The learned counsel for the delinquent/petitioner herein has confined his submission before this Court qua the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000 having been untenably construed to be dies-non whereas he had furnished a medical certificate to his employer comprised in Annexure P-12 with an unfoldment therein of his for the period aforesaid having remained under treatment, as such his being tenably precluded from attending his duties. 3. Before proceeding to render a determination, qua the factum, whether the medical certificate as furnished by the petitioner herein, before his employer, enunciating therein good, sufficient and abundant reason which precluded or restrained him from joining his duties holds vigour, it is necessary to advert to the findings and conclusion recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary authority besides the appellate authority for unearthing the factum whether the said certificate projecting therein the illness which beset the petitioner herein and constrained him not to join his duties, had remained excluded from consideration by the aforesaid authorities besides whether theirs having omitted to pay reverence to it despite its holding tenacity for its dispelling the imputation of misconduct against the petitioner qua the period aforesaid. A keen rummaging of and an incisive perusal of the orders rendered by the authorities aforesaid unravels the factum of theirs having excluded from consideration the aforesaid apposite germane material, naturally then, the tenacity of the conclusions and findings recorded by the authorities aforesaid qua the petitioner/delinquent having committed the misconduct attributed to him, would be rendered infirm. 4. Moreover, for reiteration, a close and incisive perusal of the Inquiry report as well as of the findings and conclusions arrived at by the appellate authority, divulges the fact of no advertence having been paid by them to the factum of the furnishing of a medical certificate by the petitioner to his employer disclosing therein his ailment which constrained him not to join his duties for the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000, Obviously in view of the aforesaid exclusion by the authorities aforesaid of the referred apposite and germane material from consideration for determining the factum of the petitioner herein having committed misconduct in as much as his having willfully without any tenable/extenuable cause absented from duties for the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000, and its sequelling its being reckonable to be dies-non, lends force to an inference that hence its exclusion from consideration permeates the findings and conclusions rendered by the authorities aforesaid with the vice of thorough non-application of mind. For omission on the part of the authorities aforesaid to take into consideration the germane and apposite material, this court is constrained to invincibly conclude that their orders suffer from an infirmity and vice of non-application of mind in as much as it was necessary for them to dwell upon and pronounce upon the tenacity of the certificate furnished by the petitioner before his employer disclosing therein his illness especially when it constituted a extenuable cause for his absence from duties. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the face of a disclosure in para 4 of Annexure P-7 of the wife of the petitioner/delinquent suffering from an ailment renders the disclosure in the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner to his employer to be ridden with falsity. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the face of a disclosure in para 4 of Annexure P-7 of the wife of the petitioner/delinquent suffering from an ailment renders the disclosure in the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner to his employer to be ridden with falsity. However, the mere fact of a disclosure of the Annexure P-7 of the wife of the petitioner suffering from an ailment does not perse render the enunciation in the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner to his employer to be ingrained with falsity unless material cogent, sufficient and apt was un-earthed during the course of holding of an inquiry by the employer qua the falsity ingraining the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner. However, there is no material on record of any inquiry having been held by the respondents for detecting any falsity in the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner to his employer, especially when it constituted a good and sufficient reason which deterred him from joining his duties. Therefore, the submission as addressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that In the face of the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner being for the reasons aforesaid imbued with falsity it holds no probative worth cannot be accepted, consequently it is discountenanced. 6. Before departing, it is also necessary to deprecate the procedure adopted by the respondents, in theirs having proceeded to construe the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000 for want of the petitioner herein applied for leave for that period to be hence constituting the germinating material for the purported commission of mis-conduct by the petitioner herein, besides theirs having untenably excluded from consideration the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner herein before his employer comprising a good deterrent for his not joining the duties for the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000, his absence whereof was treated as dies-non, even when they had in their possession a medical certificate furnished by the petitioner before them, which palpably neither remained processed nor actioned upon whereas in the face of its proven submission by the petitioner before the respondent the holding of an inquiry by the respondents for the willful absention of the petitioner from duties i.e. from 29.10.1999 to 1.4.2000, could well have been withheld. It appears that for victimizing the petitioner herein, an appropriate action on the medical certificate by the respondent was withheld. It appears that for victimizing the petitioner herein, an appropriate action on the medical certificate by the respondent was withheld. In case at the stage of its submission by the petitioner and its containing valid and good reason deterring the petitioner to resume duties the departmental proceedings for the commission of purported misconduct by the petitioner herein could well have been withheld or halted. In view of above, present petition stands partly allowed and impugned Annexures P-8 and P-2 are quashed and set aside in so far they relate to the period commencing from 29.10.1999 to 31.3.2000. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.