1 W.P.No.3696/09 with CA No.13754/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3696 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.13754 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 02.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent No.3 stopped four increments of the petitioner vide order dated 14.6.1997. The petitioner filed an application for Review. The Respondent No.3 modified his order. The Respondent No.3 in the said order sanctioned the leave of the said period but did not release the four increments. The petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner reduced the said penalty to the extent of two increments. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when his leave was sanctioned, in such circumstances, no inquiry could be held nor the petitioner could be punished on account of 2 W.P.No.3696/09 with CA No.13754/11 absentism. It is only after the authorities were satisfied about the reason of the absence, on that count only the leave was sanctioned. In such circumstances, no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioner. 4. Mr.Bondar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the action has been validly taken. The petitioner was absent and as such the action taken was proper. No fault can be found in the order passed by the authorities. The Additional Commissioner in appeal has taken a liberal approach and has reduced the increments which were stopped. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned orders. The punishment was imposed on the petitioner on account of absentism. When the petitioner filed review, his application for leave was sanctioned. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was absent, the same was condoned. In view of the fact that it can not be said that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent. The authority on objective satisfaction of the reasons stated had sanctioned the leave. In such circumstances, no punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C). 3 W.P.No.3696/09 with CA No.13754/11 7. The Civil Application No.13754 of 2011, is disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.02.12.2011. asp/office/wp3693.09 4 W.P.No.3696/09 with CA No.13754/11