JUDGMENT J.SREENIVAS RAO,J. - The present Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.15014/L&R/DKD/Min.03/HAP/2002-1320 dtd. 20/4/2002 withholding the increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the Appeal vide order dtd. 16/9/2002 and also Revisional Authority vide order dtd. 29/5/2003 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Heard Ms.K.Bhargavi, learned counsel representing Smt.K.Udaya Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the post of Sub-Inspector/Executive through due selection process on 14/9/1997 and he was posted to FACT (CD) Cochin, Kerala State and subsequently transferred to Hyderabad Air Port on 13/7/2001. On 28/8/2001, the petitioner while working in "B" shift received a telegram from his family at Cochin, that his son namely Abhijeet Kumar, aged about 11 months, fell sick and admitted in Hospital at Cochin and the petitioner was asked to come over as the health of the child was serious. Petitioner submitted leave application for 17 days commencing from 28/8/2001 to 15/9/2001. On 29/8/2001, the Company Commander advised the petitioner to attend to "A" shift duty before proceeding on leave. The Company Commandant has also advised the Company Commander to verify the position for grant of leave. According to Commandant, one more candidate by name Srikumar was also on leave as he has to vacate the quarter at his previous unit and therefore advised only to spare one S.I. i.e., either the petitioner or said Srikumar. On the endorsement made by the Company Commandant, petitioner proceeded to Cochin after attending duty at "A" shift on 29/8/2001. She further submitted that after availing the leave, the petitioner reported back for duty on 13/9/2001. 4. While things stood thus, on 7/11/2001, respondent No.3 issued charge memo on the ground that petitioner deserted from unit lines on 29/8/2001 after performing the "A" shift duty, without any permission from the competent authority, and remained absent without leave from 29/8/2001 to 13/9/2001 and the same amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duties. Petitioner had submitted explanation to the charge memo, explaining the reasons for his absence. Petitioner had submitted explanation to the charge memo, explaining the reasons for his absence. Respondent No.3 not satisfying the explanation submitted by the petitioner, initiated Departmental Enquiry and basing upon the enquiry report, respondent No.3 passed final order on 20/4/2002 imposing a penalty of withholding increment for a period of one year, which will have the effect of postponing future increments of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed Appeal before respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority also without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dtd. 16/9/2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision before respondent No.1. The Revisional Authority, after due verification of the records accepted the contentions of the petitioner that he submitted leave application on 29/8/2001, on the other hand, rejected the Revision. 6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that petitioner while discharging his duty on 28/8/2001, he received telegram from his family members from Cochin that his minor son, fell sick and admitted in Hospital at Cochin. Due to the same, the petitioner submitted leave application to the concerned authorities thereafter went to his native place. Respondent authorities without considering the said facts, imposed highest punishment withholding one increment with cumulative effect and same is contrary to law. 7. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 . 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the petitioner, while discharging his duty as SubInspector/Executive in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), absented duties unauthorisedly from 29/8/2001 to 15/9/2001. Respondent No.3 after following CISF Rules, by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and also after taking into consideration of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, rightly imposed the punishment withholding one annual grade increment and passed the impugned order dtd. 20/4/2002. Giving cogent findings, the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 16/9/2002 and the Revisional Authority on 29/5/2003 and there is no illegality, irregularity or error in the impugned order. 9. 20/4/2002. Giving cogent findings, the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 16/9/2002 and the Revisional Authority on 29/5/2003 and there is no illegality, irregularity or error in the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it clearly reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector/Executive on 14/9/1997, and while discharging his official duties on 28/8/2001, he received a telegram from his family members at Cochin that his 11 month's minor son was admitted in Hospital due to his ill-health and petitioner's presence is very much required. As soon as, he received the said information, he had applied for leave to the concerned officer on 28/8/2001, requesting to grant leave from 28/8/2001 to 15/9/2001. The Commandant made an endorsement on the said leave application. Thereafter, the petitioner went to his native place on 29/8/2001 and he came back to Hyderabad on 13/9/2001 for reporting to duty. 10. On 7/11/2001, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo to the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized absence from 29/8/2001 to 13/9/2001. In response to the same, petitioner submitted explanation stating that due to ill-health of his minor son, he went to his native place and returned back to Hyderabad on 13/9/2001 and requested the respondents to drop the proceedings. 11. It further reveals from the records that the respondent No.3 was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and initiated departmental enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer and basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent No.3 passed final order on 20/4/2002 imposing punishment withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. Respondent authorities have not disputed the fact that the petitioner submitted leave application on 28/8/2001 stating the reasons for grant of leave that his minor son was admitted in the hospital and his presence is very much required and the Commandant also made endorsement on the said leave application. The documents further reveals that his minor son admitted in the hospital on 28/8/2001 and he was discharged on 2/9/2001 and also he was treated as out-patient till 10/9/2001. Respondent No.3, without taking into consideration of the above said facts, imposed higher punishment withholding of one annual grade increment. 12. The documents further reveals that his minor son admitted in the hospital on 28/8/2001 and he was discharged on 2/9/2001 and also he was treated as out-patient till 10/9/2001. Respondent No.3, without taking into consideration of the above said facts, imposed higher punishment withholding of one annual grade increment. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar cited "supra" held as follows: "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 behavior 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 unauthorized 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, 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." 13. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that in the absence of duty under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held wilful. In the instant case also, the petitioner absented his duties from 29/8/2001 to 15/9/2001 due to ill health of his minor son aged 11 months, who was hospitalized on 27/8/2001 and he was treated in the hospital upto 10/9/2001. The absence of the petitioner cannot be held wilful nor wanton. Taking into consideration of the above said facts, it clearly establishes that the petitioner absented the duties unintentionally and such absence cannot be held wilful as especially the petitioner submitted application seeking grant of leave, the impugned punishment order passed by respondent No.3 which was confirmed by respondent No.2 and respondent no.1 are liable to be modified. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dtd. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dtd. 20/4/2002 which was confirmed by the respondent Nos.2 and respondent No.1 are set aside, and imposition of punishment withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is modified into without cumulative effect. Respondents are directed to pay monetary benefits as per entitlements of the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.