JUDGMENT : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. Introductory :- 1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.21143 of 2006 on the file of this Court filed the present Writ Appeal questioning the sustainability of the orders dated 26.10.2024 passed therein by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The Writ Petition was filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuing an appropriate Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the Memo No.CGM/ HRD/DS/AS.III/PO(DC)/A/F.No.54/D.No.1223/06, dated 08.09.2006 of the first respondent by confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.SE/O/GNT/Adm./JAO/C2/D.No.37/06, dated 16.06.2006 (modified vide Memo No.SE/O/GNT/Adm./JAO/C2/D.No.39/06, dated 22.06.2006 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Circular Memo No.DM(Ser.I)/3900-H3/86-3), dated 08.08.1986 and Memo No.DP/DM(Ser)/1228-M(a)1/91, dated 22.01.1997 and also violation of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the impugned memos issued by the first and second respondents, with a direction to the respondents to add one increment by treating the leave period of the petitioner as on duty with full service benefits and to pass such other order or orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 herein is Respondent No.1 in the writ proceedings. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the writ petition. Case of the Writ Petitioner: 5(i). The writ petitioner was working as an L.D.C. in the Circle Office, Guntur. He applied for medical leave and sent leave applications through registered post on different dates. In the first instance, he requested medical leave with effect from 02.10.2005 to 21.10.2005, in the second instance from 22.10.2005 to 20.11.2005, in the third instance from 21.11.2005 for 40 days and in the fourth instance from 31.12.2005 to 28.02.2006 on the ground of suffering from infective Hepatitis. (ii). The leave letter relating to the fourth instance was sent in writing on white paper and the same was sent under certificate of posting, which was neither accepted nor rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner was not referred to any Medical Board on the ground of any suspicion regarding medical grounds. (iii). (ii). The leave letter relating to the fourth instance was sent in writing on white paper and the same was sent under certificate of posting, which was neither accepted nor rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner was not referred to any Medical Board on the ground of any suspicion regarding medical grounds. (iii). However, petitioner was directed to hand over his seat in full shape to Kumari G. Malathi, L.D.C. Hence, he was under impression that the leave was sanctioned to him. (iv). The petitioner went to the office of the respondent’s with a medical fitness certificate on 13.03.2006 and was asked to submit the leave application in proper proforma. Accordingly, he submitted the same. (v). Respondent No.3 recommended sanction subject to eligibility. Respondent No.2, in his proceedings dated 24.03.2006, stated that pending finalization of disciplinary action and regularization of period of un-authorized absence, the petitioner was posted at the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Repalle, Guntur District. Accordingly, the petitioner reported at Repalle. (vi). Respondent No.2 issued Show Cause Notice vide Memo No.SC/O/GNT/Adm./C2/D.No.22/06, dated 10.04.2006 stating that he had come to a provisional conclusion to award the punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect, besides treating the absconding period from 31.12.2005 F.N. to 24.03.2006 F.N. as ‘Dies-Non’ and he asked the explanation of the petitioner. (vii). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28.04.2006, stating all the facts with proof of medical evidence and also physical fitness certificate. (viii). The orders of respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 16.06.2006 were served, awarding punishment to the petitioner of postponement / withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, besides treating the period of absence from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 as ‘dies-Non’ and it was informed that there is an appeal provisions before the respondent No.1. (ix). It is also the case of the petitioner that he is a Trade Union Leader. Therefore, to harass him, the double punishment was imposed particularly to deny the future departmental promotions etc. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ petition for appropriate reliefs. 6. Respondents justified their action on the grounds of non-receipt of leave letter and unauthorised absence. 7. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition ordering to treat the absence period as duty period. 8. Hence the appeal. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellants / respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition: 9(i). 6. Respondents justified their action on the grounds of non-receipt of leave letter and unauthorised absence. 7. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition ordering to treat the absence period as duty period. 8. Hence the appeal. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellants / respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition: 9(i). Learned counsel for the appellants would submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the leave letter was not properly submitted by the writ petitioner and that sending the fourth leave letter under certificate of posting is not correct. (ii). It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition only on the ground of double punishment directing to treat the entire absence period as on duty, which is against the rules. Hence requires interference and the orders are liable to be set-aside. For the writ petitioner: 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the leave letters were sent from time to time and that the respondent authorities, for their own reasons, imposed double punishment without there being any charge and that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed that the absence of petitioner from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 shall be treated as on duty and that the petitioner shall be entitled for service benefits for the said period. 11. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the period of absence from 31.12.2005 to 13.03.2006 was properly explained by the writ petitioner and whether the same has been properly addressed by the respondent authorities and whether the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 26.10.2024, allowing the writ petition directing to treat the period of absence from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 as on duty and that the writ petitioner shall be entitled for service benefits for the said period, are sustainable or require any interference? 2) What is the result of the Writ Appeal? Point No.1: 13. Submission of leave applications by the writ petitioner for the periods from 02.10.2005 to 21.10.2005, from 22.10.2005 to 20.11.2005, from 21.11.2005 for forty days and the positive consideration of the prayer to grant leave for first three periods, are clear from the record. 14. 2) What is the result of the Writ Appeal? Point No.1: 13. Submission of leave applications by the writ petitioner for the periods from 02.10.2005 to 21.10.2005, from 22.10.2005 to 20.11.2005, from 21.11.2005 for forty days and the positive consideration of the prayer to grant leave for first three periods, are clear from the record. 14. As per the contention of the appellants for the absence of petitioner from 31.12.2005 F.N. to 24.03.2006 F.N., there is no satisfactory explanation. 15. The writ petitioner has sent the leave application through certificate of posting for the said period. 16. The Medical certificate dated 13.03.2006 indicates that the petitioner was advised to take complete rest for the period from 31.12.2005 to 13.03.2006. 17. The medical certificates dated 21.10.2005, 21.11.2005 and 13.03.2006 indicate that the petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis. 18. Even if, for any reason, the fourth letter for extension of leave was not received immediately, the absence of the petitioner, being in continuation of the earlier period for which leave was granted, cannot be considered as unauthorised and it can be treated as overstay. However, when the same is explained with proper reason, as rightly pointed out and appreciated by the learned Single Judge. When the medical reason stated by the writ petitioner is not doubted nor is it the case of the respondents (appellants) that the writ petitioner was referred to a Medical Board for examination of the genuineness of his contention as to sickness, they cannot accuse the writ petitioner. Therefore, the allegation of unauthorised absence cannot be said as well-founded. 19. It is also the case that the proper enquiry was not conducted and it appears that the proposed punishment was sent along with the notice / memo. The punishments (1) postponement of increment and (2) imposition of ‘dies-non’ are two punishments. The same is not permissible, even if the charge is true. 20. When the punishment imposed is not based on proving of a particular charge viz. the wilful abstinence and unauthorised absence, the punishment does not stand for the test of law. When an employee has applied for leave and the application is bona fide, the absent period covered by the leave application cannot be said as an unauthorised absence. When the absence is not unauthorised, the allegation / charge does not sustain. Consequently the punishment shall not survive. When an employee has applied for leave and the application is bona fide, the absent period covered by the leave application cannot be said as an unauthorised absence. When the absence is not unauthorised, the allegation / charge does not sustain. Consequently the punishment shall not survive. However, the absent period of employee require regularisation by granting appropriate leave to which the employee is entitled. 21. In the present case, medical leave was granted for three spells. For the last spell covering the period from 31.12.2005 to 13.03.2006, the absence is to be regularised, for which the writ petitioner has already submitted an application. Therefore, it is for the authorities to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders. 22. In view of the discussion made above, the orders of the learned Single Judge are found sustainable to the extent of setting aside punishments i.e. ‘dies-non’. However, to the extent of direction to treat the absence period as duty period, requires clarification. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The punishment imposed against the writ petitioner by way of postponement / withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and punishment of dies-non for the period of absence from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 shall stand set-aside. 2) The proceedings of respondent No.1 / the Chief General Manager, H.R.D. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Tirupathi, dated 08.09.2006 and respondent No.2 / the Superintendent Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Operation Circle, Guntur, dated 16.06.2006 shall stand set aside. 3) The orders of the learned Single Judge dated 26.10.2024 in W.P.No.21143 of 2006, directing to treat the absence period of the petitioner from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 as on duty, shall stand set-aside. 4) The period of absence of the writ petitioner from 31.12.2005 to 24.03.2006 shall be regularized by considering the leave application of the writ petitioner for grant of leave to which he is entitled from leave account / title or by way of extraordinary leave, if there is no leave title to his credit. 5) There shall be no order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.