JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to make certain corrections in paras-1(a), 1(d), 16 and 19 as well as in synopsis of the main writ application, as due to typographical mistake some error has been crept-up and for the ends of justice, the same are required to be corrected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 3. Permission is accorded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make suitable corrections in the aforesaid paragraphs of the main writ application by red ink, in course of the day. 5. Heard the parties. 6. In the instant writ application prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 29.11.2018, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby a punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect has been inflicted against the petitioner and due to the said reason, matter of promotion of the petitioner has also been kept in abeyance. 7. Petitioner has further prayed that after quashing the said order, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion from the Basic Grade to Junior Selection Grade with all consequential benefits from 06.07.2015 i.e. from the date when the Juniors to her have been promoted. 8. During the pendency of the instant writ application, vide order dated 26.06.2020, the respondent-Joint Secretary in exercise of power conferred under Rule-14(iv) of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 has reduced the punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect to withholding of two increment with non-cumulative effect by partly allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the said order by filing I.A. No. 5162 of 2020 which was allowed vide order dated 27.01.2021 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. The facts of the case in short is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector vide memo dated 20.06.2006 issued by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand and since the date of her appointment, she has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and honesty and to the full satisfaction of her Seniors. 9. The facts of the case in short is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector vide memo dated 20.06.2006 issued by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand and since the date of her appointment, she has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and honesty and to the full satisfaction of her Seniors. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 22.06.2010, the respondent No. 5 has relieved the petitioner from the charge of Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, on the ground of illegal absence and thereafter, vide memo No. 637 dated 02.07.2010, respondent No. 5 has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. However, respondent No. 5 by his letter dated 16.07.2010, reverted the petitioner back to her original place of posting i.e. Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.09.2010, the respondent-authorities asked the petitioner to submit her show-cause and again after a gap of almost three years i.e. on 06.08.2013, the respondents have asked the petitioner to file her show-cause. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted her show-cause on 06.09.2013, denying the allegations levelled against her. 10. Thereafter, after a gap of more than 3 years, respondent No. 3 vide resolution dated 28.04.2017 has initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the said departmental proceeding and submitted her reply before the Enquiry Officer on 15.05.2017. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding therein that Charge No. 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner are partly proved and Charge No. 3 is fully proved. Thereafter, second show-cause notice dated 02.01.2018 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her reply to the second show-cause notice on 16.03.2018. However, without considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities have passed order dated 29.11.2018 inflicting punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect. 11. It is the further case of the petitioner that she moved before this Court by filing writ application being W.P.(S). No. 584 of 2018 for grant of promotion and this Court vide its order dated 11.09.2018 was pleased to direct the respondents to hold a fresh meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) for consideration of the case of the petitioner for her promotion. No. 584 of 2018 for grant of promotion and this Court vide its order dated 11.09.2018 was pleased to direct the respondents to hold a fresh meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) for consideration of the case of the petitioner for her promotion. Upon receipt of the order of this Court, the respondents have convened the meeting of DPC on 25.04.2019 and the promotion of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover due to currency of punishment order dated 29.11.2018. 12. Aggrieved by non-consideration of her case, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 13. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that impugned orders are grossly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and as such, fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was in the third trimester of her pregnancy and in such compelling situation, had to go to the Hospital for treatment to avoid complications and it cannot be said that the absence from duty was willful. Hence, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against her. Learned counsel submits that 1st DPC was held in the year 2015 but the case of the petitioner was not considered due to non-availability of her ACR, which was not the fault of the petitioner and now the respondents have withheld her promotion on the ground of currency of punishment w.e.f. 29.11.2018, which is completely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have failed to consider the fact that any order of punishment will have its effect from prospective date and not from retrospective date, unless otherwise it is specifically mentioned in the punishment order. Learned counsel further argues that prolonging a departmental enquiry for an indefinite period has its adverse effect on the credibility of whole enquiry system. Learned counsel lastly submits that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner is in complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Darshana Poddar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner is in complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Darshana Poddar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Justifying the impugned orders, learned counsel submits that apart from challenging the punishment order dated 29.11.2018 before this Court, the petitioner has also challenged the same before the Appellate Authority by filing Appeal under Rule 24 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and the Appellate Authority after due consideration of the case of the petitioner, vide its order dated 26.06.2020 has modified the original punishment order by reducing the punishment of the petitioner from withholding three increments with non-cumulative effect to withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and hence, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the punishment order dated 28.11.2018 has now become infructuous. Learned counsel further argues that initially the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion in the meeting of DPC held on 15.06.2015, wherein in absence of the ACR promotion to the petitioner was denied by the DPC. Learned counsel further argues that in compliance of the Court's order dated 11.09.2018, case of the petitioner along with others were considered in the DPC held on 22.04.2019 and in terms of direction of this Court, the petitioner was recommended for grant of notional promotion retrospectively w.e.f. 06.07.2015, i.e. the date on which persons juniors to her were granted promotion. However, notification to that effect could not be issued due to currency of punishment order dated 29.11.2018. Learned counsel submits that as soon as the effect of punishment is over, the promotion will be granted to the petitioner. 15. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.S. Murugesan, [ (1995) 3 SCC 273 ]; (II) Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, [ (1989) 2 SCC 541 ]. (III) Anirud Kumar v. Union of India through the Secretary, [2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 23] 16. 15. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.S. Murugesan, [ (1995) 3 SCC 273 ]; (II) Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, [ (1989) 2 SCC 541 ]. (III) Anirud Kumar v. Union of India through the Secretary, [2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 23] 16. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 17. From examination of Bihar/Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, it is crystal clear that every government employee is required to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. In the instant case, on the charge of unauthorized absence of four days i.e. from 17.06.2010 to 20.06.2010, the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect, which was later on reduced to withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect by the Appellate Authority. Though there are three charges levelled against the petitioner but the main charge is of unauthorized absence for which petitioner was inflicted punishment. 18. From perusal of the documents brought on record and from the enquiry report it appears that the petitioner in peculiar circumstances had to rush to the Hospital and after getting immediate treatment, she informed her Superiors through FAX which has come by way of evidence. 19. In case of judicial review, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 in para-25 has held that: “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 analysing 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.” 20. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held as under: “16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether “unauthorised 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 wilful 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 wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, 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 unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, 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 unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.” 21. In any view of the matter, it has to be proved that the absence was willful. In the present case, a female Circle Officer, who was in the third trimester of pregnancy, had to rush to Hospital to avoid abortion as earlier she had faced the situation in which she had to abort her pregnancy. In any view of the matter, it has to be proved that the absence was willful. In the present case, a female Circle Officer, who was in the third trimester of pregnancy, had to rush to Hospital to avoid abortion as earlier she had faced the situation in which she had to abort her pregnancy. On this point evidences were led in the departmental proceeding by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has clearly held that in such a situation only because prior information was not given, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the charges. In this particular situation which was unavoidable, no prudent man can say that the Officer was guilty of the charge. 22. The other charges which were levelled against the petitioner are consequential charges which were of the period during which petitioner could not attend her duty but from the Enquiry Report itself it is clear that after assuming the duty, she signed all the papers. Merely because she could not put her signature in the intervening period, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges, which warrants punishment. Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered the relevant facts and the show-cause reply of the petitioner and mechanically awarded punishment. 23. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and does not have any leg to stand. The same is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the punishment order dated 29.11.2018 and the appellate order 26.06.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. 24. Now the next issue is regarding grant of promotion to the petitioner. The case of petitioner for promotion was rejected on the ground that confidential report i.e. A.C.R. was not available on the date of consideration. Since the similarly situated persons were already granted promotion and the case of the petitioner was kept in abeyance only for want of ACR, the petitioner along with others approached this Court by filing writ application i.e. W.P.(S). No. 584 of 2018 and this Court after hearing the parties vide its order dated 11.09.2018 has observed as under: “7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent no. No. 584 of 2018 and this Court after hearing the parties vide its order dated 11.09.2018 has observed as under: “7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent no. 2 - Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for holding a meeting of fresh Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of cases of the petitioners for grant of promotion from Basic Grade to Junior Selection Grade. The other grounds for non-consideration as the pendency of CBI Investigation, is not at all tenable and not acceptable by this Court on the ground that the other similarly situated persons have already been considered and they have been granted promotion and as such, this ground is not available to the respondents. The respondents are further directed to hold meeting of fresh Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of their cases, preferably within a period of three months from today. If petitioners are found fit for promotion, the same shall be considered and granted to them from the date the juniors have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefits.” 25. Upon the direction of this Court, the respondents after holding fresh D.P.C. granted ad hoc promotion to the petitioner from 06.07.2015 and observed that since punishment has been inflicted against the petitioner, actual promotion shall be granted after the effect of the punishment order dated 29.11.2018 is over. 26. The judgment cited by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State i.e. “Collector of Thanjavur Distt. v. S. Rajagopalan, [ (2000) 9 SCC 145 ]”, is not applicable in the instant case though the propositions of law are not in dispute. In that case, challenge was thrown that withholding of promotion because of punishment amounts to double jeopardy and the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the same cannot be said to be double jeopardy. It was further observed that, “the least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date is penalized in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalized and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalized, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. When an employee is held guilty and penalized and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalized, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified”. 27. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case does not apply in the present case as promotion to the present petitioner was rejected on the ground of nonavailability of ACR which is non est in the eyes of law, as petitioner was not at fault for non-availability of ACR. It is not a case that the ACR of the petitioner subsequently was not found to be unblemished. 28. The case law referred by learned Additional Advocate General was of Article 20(2) of Constitution which talks of double jeopardy, which is not applicable in the instant case, neither the said contention was ever placed or argued by the petitioner. 29. Now, as the punishment order itself is held to be non est in the eyes of law and the same has already been quashed and set aside by this Court and further as the judgment relied upon the learned Additional Advocate General is not applicable in the instant case, the ad hoc promotion given to the petitioner shall be regularized from 06.07.2015 itself, the date on which juniors to the petitioner were considered and granted promotion, with all consequential benefits. 30. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.