JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Company. 2. Petitioner has assailed the order of punishment issued on 31.07.2014 by the Deputy General Manager (Human Resources and Administration) of the respondent-Company whereby stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect were directed. Petitioner was released from suspension with immediate effect and it was ordered that beyond subsistence allowance, for the period of suspension, petitioner will not get any further emoluments and that the period should be treated as on duty for all other purposes. Against the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the General Manager of the respondent-Company. The same has been disposed of by order dated 01.12.2015 communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the General Manager (Human Resources and Administration) of respondent-Company. The punishment has been brought down to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The other punishment have been maintained by the Appellate Authority. Order of the Appellate Authority dated 01.12.2015 is also assailed in the instant proceedings. 3. Brief background is that certain recoveries were wrongly made from one retired Accountant, namely, Daya Shankar Singh of the respondent-Company. Under orders of the High Court on the writ petition filed by Dayashankar Singh, the amounts recovered were required to be refunded to the said Dayashankar Singh. Situation arose where contempt proceedings were initiated for implementation of the orders passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 11480 of 2005 in favour of the said Daya Shankar Singh. The petitioner, who was the then Accountant-cum-Accounts Officer, has been punished for certain delay occasioned in tendering the refund amount to the said Dayashankar Singh. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration of all the facts, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had made efforts to hand over the cheque for refund to the said Daya Shankar Singh. Having concluded so, the Appellate Authority has proceeded to record that since Daya Shankar Singh was not available till 29.01.2013, the petitioner could have also made efforts to make deposit in his account. Factual position, as per order of the Appellate Authority, is that Daya Shankar Singh had returned to Patna on 29.01.2013 and that the petitioner had handed over the cheque just two days thereafter, i.e., on 31.01.2013. Factual position, as per order of the Appellate Authority, is that Daya Shankar Singh had returned to Patna on 29.01.2013 and that the petitioner had handed over the cheque just two days thereafter, i.e., on 31.01.2013. Findings of the Appellate Authority are such that no misconduct is made out although the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the petitioner could have taken some more steps in the matter. There is no finding that the delay of one day in handing over the cheque was on account of any mala fide reasons or extraneous considerations. This Court would consider it useful to reproduce the findings of the Appellate Authority against the petitioner: ^^Jh pkS/kjh ds bl rdZ dh iqf"V] fd Jh n;k'kadj flag] lsokfuo`r ys[kkiky }kjk mUgsa psd [kkrk esa tek djus ls euk fd;k x;k Fkk] foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa Jh falag }kjk xokg ds :i esa fn;s x;s c;ku ls gksrh gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh flag fnukad 27&01&2013 rd vkokl ij ugha FksA fnukad 28&01&13 dks jksdM+iky ds vodk'k esa jgus ,oa 29&01&13 dks Jh flag ds ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lquokbZ gsrq iVuk vk tkus ds QyLo:i mUgsa psd fnukad 31&01&13 dks gLrxr djk;k tk ldkA Li"Vr% Jh pkS/kjh }kjk psdks dks Jh flag dks gLrxr djkus gsrq iz;kl fd;k x;k ijUrq tks lrdZrk ,oa ltxrk muls visf{kr Fkh] og xaHkhjrk muds }kjk ml ekeys esa ugha fn[kkbZ xbZA ;fn muds }kjk Jh flag ds miyC/k u jgus dh fLFkfr esa voekuukokn dks /;ku esa j[kdj psd Jh flag ds [kkrk esa tek dj fn;k tkrk rks dEiuh dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vfiz; fLFkfr dk lkeuk ugha djuk iM+rkA izklafxd ekeys esa Jh pkS/kjh iw.kZr% funksZ"k ugha ekus tk ldrs gSaA ;|fi muds Lrj ij cjrh gqbZ ykijokgh ds ifjis{; esa mUgsa iznRr naM v/fkd ,oa vlekuqifrd izrhr gksrk gSA vr,o la0 la0 509 fnukad 31&07&2014 }kjk mUgs iznRr n.M dks de djrs gq, fuEu n.M iznku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA** 4. Clearly, the findings are not such so as to constitute misconduct against the petitioner. At best, in opinion of the Appellate Authority, some more efforts should have been taken by the petitioner by depositing the amount in the account of Daya Shankar Singh. Such conclusion of the Appellate Authority is also self-contradictory. Clearly, the findings are not such so as to constitute misconduct against the petitioner. At best, in opinion of the Appellate Authority, some more efforts should have been taken by the petitioner by depositing the amount in the account of Daya Shankar Singh. Such conclusion of the Appellate Authority is also self-contradictory. Just prior to these conclusions, Appellate Authority has taken note of the fact, in the appellate order, that Daya Shankar Singh had specifically given instruction to the petitioner not to deposit his cheque in his account. 5. No misconduct whatsoever, in the circumstances, can be inferred against the petitioner even on a bare reading of the order of the Appellate Authority itself, and, as such, there can be no justification for any punishment. 6. In the circumstances, the order of punishment issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.07.2014 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 01.12.2015 are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same are quashed. 7. Writ petition stands allowed. 8. Petitioner, as a result of quashing of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.07.2014 as well as Appellate Authority dated 01.12.2015, would be entitled o all consequential benefits.