IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.12881 of 2008. Reserved on: 14.3.2011 Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Subhash Chand Sharma …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Sh.K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs:- “1. That the impugned order dated 3.9.2005 Annexure A-11 of withholding three increments with cumulative effect may kindly be ordered to be set aside by declaring it illegal, being void ab initio as the same is against the law of the land.” 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner has been held guilty of willful 2 absence from duty w.e.f. 19.1.2001 to 11.5.2001. It has also been found that the petitioner did not get himself properly relieved and did not hand over the charge of the post on his transfer and did not care to comply with the orders of the superior. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and hence the present petition. 4. I have heard Sh.K.B.Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 5. After going through the entire record including the report of the Inquiry Officer, I am of the considered view that the Inquiry Officer rightly held that the charges were proved against the petitioner. It also stands proved that the petitioner was transferred but did not join at the place of transfer. A Government servant cannot remain absent from duties without any reasonable causes. The medical certificates produced by the petitioner are virtually from an unrecognized institution. It 3 cannot be believed that a Government servant would remain ill for three months and not go to proper hospital. 6. However, I am of the view that the penalty of withholding of three increments of the pay of the petitioner with cumulative effect is very harsh. This will affect his retiral benefits for all times. Therefore, the impugned order dated 3.9.2005 is set aside only with regard to the quantum of punishment. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 who shall after hearing the petitioner impose fresh punishment on the petitioner commensurate with the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner. Needful be done within three months of the petitioner producing the certified copy of the order of this Court before respondent No.1. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 21, 2011 (m) (Deepak Gupta) Judge 4