From perusal of record, it reflects that the appellant refuted the allegations explaining the reasons that his mother was sick and he remained busy in his treatment and during the said period, he moved applications for leave which were neither considered nor informed to him. Thereafter, he came to office for rejoining his duty and came to know that he was dismissed from service by the respondent No.2. While passing the penalty order the punishing authority did not give findings upon any stance of the appellant. Nothing has been mentioned with regard to defense version of appellant duly based on the grounds narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. No cogent reasoning is attached with the penalty order passed by respondent No.2. It is well settled law that prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused person beyond any shadow of doubt and on its own legs.

In view of what has been discussed above, the instant service appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service. The Intervening period is treated as leave without pay.