JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned penalty Annexure P/25 ANNEXURE P/29 & ANNEXURE P/30. 2. That the respondents may further be commanded by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date juniors have been promoted as Senior Assistant and further as Superintendent Grade-II, with all consequential benefits.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which finally culminated into order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P/25), passed by the Disciplinary Authority, relevant portion whereof, reads as under:- “Earlier in compliance with Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal order dated 23.12.2015 a copy of said enquiry report along with fresh Show Cause Notice letter No. HB (4)325/93 dated 16.06.2016 was served upon the delinquent official, which has been acknowledged by the said official and he has submitted his reply on dated 28.06.2016, wherein he has prayed that absence from the duties was not intentional rather he was trapped in such a circumstances to opt between his duties or to look after his ailing mother. Further he has ensured not to repeat such things in future and requested to take lenient view by exonerating him from the charges framed against him and denovo enquiry proceedings may be dropped and period of absence from Govt. duty w.e.f. 06.06.2010 to 31.01.2011 may very kindly be regularized. Now therefore, after taking into consideration the request of the delinquent official Shri Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant, the under signed is of the opinion that denovo enquiry proceedings against said Shri Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant as ordered vide this office order No. 76472016 dated 26.09.2016 are no more required, as the said official has admitted the charge (s) and request has been made by him to consider his case sympathetically, Sh. Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant is "Censured" and warned not to repeat such things in future. Further it is also ordered that the period of willful absence from the Govt. duty w.e.f. 07.06.2010 to 31.01.2011 is treated to be as leave of kind due as a special case.” 3. Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant is "Censured" and warned not to repeat such things in future. Further it is also ordered that the period of willful absence from the Govt. duty w.e.f. 07.06.2010 to 31.01.2011 is treated to be as leave of kind due as a special case.” 3. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, was assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P/29), in terms whereof, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was maintained by the Appellate Authority. As the order passed by the Appellate Authority is brief but self-speaking, the same is also quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “Brief facts are that proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of CCS/CCA 1965 against him for disobedience of orders and absence from Government duty for which he had been given compulsory retirement from service. After a prolonged litigation, the matter was reviewed by the PCCF (HoFF) and penalty of censure was given to Sh. Mahajan as she is the disciplinary authority of Sh. Mahajan. Sh Maliajan preferred an appeal on 25.06.2021 to drop the penalty of Censure. His contention is that he had proceeded on earned leave on 5.06.2010 and that his juniors were promoted from 2014. He further requested for retrospective promotion with consequential benefits from 15/07/2014 and that the representation on 22/05/2020 may be treated as appeal against order dated 20.12.2019. He stated that on 25.06.2020 the appeal could not be filed due to ignorance of legal position, and corona pandemic. The undersigned has gone through the record. It seems that Sh: Mahajan is very contentious in his approach. He is not interested in working but only in following the litigation. Sh Mahander Kumar deliberately did not do the election duty. He was deployed as BLO by the Electoral Registration Officer (SDM) Shimla Assembly Constituency vide letter dated 4.06.2010 but instead of complying with orders he proceeded on unauthorised leave which proves bjs disobedience of orders. After that when the memo has been sent to him he refused to receive that and had not applied for extension in leave not even he joined the duty vide which he has charged for willful absence from Govt. duty. After that when the memo has been sent to him he refused to receive that and had not applied for extension in leave not even he joined the duty vide which he has charged for willful absence from Govt. duty. Keeping in view all the facts of the case such officials/officers who deliberately do not follow the orders of Government particularly the work related election census etc cannot be ignored. Hence I do not see any justification to interfere with the orders of PCCF (HoFF) of 29/02/2020 stand and the appeal of Sh. Mahander stands rejected.” 4. Against this order passed by the Appellate Authority, a Mercy Appeal/Review was sought by the petitioner. This was rejected vide Annexure P/30, dated 22.11.2021, stating that the Authority was not acceding to the said request. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 5. At this stage, one fact which requires to be highlighted is that after the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated on 20.12.2019 with the passing of an order by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, in terms of Annexure P/26, dated 29.02.2020, i.e., just two months after the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, were not sustainable in law as the Authorities erred in not appreciating that the disciplinary proceedings were not carried out in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submitted that after the inquiry was initiated, a de novo inquiry was ordered, which is not permissible in law. He further argued that after the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and before the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order in the year 2019, various DPCs were conducted and persons junior to the petitioner, were promoted. He submitted that the act of the respondents of not considering and promoting the petitioner was bad in law because as before the passing of the order by the Disciplinary Authority, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner, he should have been promoted as the promotion was only to a non-selection post. On these counts, learned counsel prayed that the present petiton be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the writ petition is completely misconceived. On these counts, learned counsel prayed that the present petiton be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the writ petition is completely misconceived. He submitted that in the present case, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated into the passing of order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P/25) by the Disciplinary Authority, in terms whereof, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He further argued that it is not as if in terms of this order, the petitioner was exonerated. He submitted that the petitioner is taking benefit of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority rather than taking appropriate action against him, in consonance with his misconduct, took a lenient view and only censured him. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that it is evident from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority that this lenient view was taken in the backdrop that the present petitioner conceded to the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he shall not repeat his mistakes in future and requested that a lenient view be taken in the matter. He further submitted that in the backdrop of the admission of his guilt by the petitioner, he neither has any right to assail the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority nor the order of the Appellate Authority. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that as far as the contention of the petitioner that persons junior to him were promoted during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is concerned, the same loses relevance in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was not exonerated. He submitted that immediately after the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was promoted on 29.02.2020, which demonstrates that the respondents have acted bonafidely. He accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings. 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Forest Department, faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for disobedience of orders of superiors and absence from Government duty. 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Forest Department, faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for disobedience of orders of superiors and absence from Government duty. The proceedings which were initiated against him culminated into the passing of order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P/25) by the Disciplinary Authority, relevant portion whereof, I have already quoted hereinabove. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, inter alia, demonstrates that though the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him, but stated that his absence from duty was not intentional, as he was trapped in such circumstances that he had to opt between performance of his duties or looking after his ailing mother. It is further evident from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner assured the Disciplinary Authority that he will not repeat such things in future and in the backdrop of his assurance, he requested that a lenient view be taken in the matter against him. It is in the backdrop of this development that the Disciplinary Authority censured the petitioner and warned him not to repeat such things in future. It was further ordered by the Authority that the period of willful absence from Government duty, i.e., the period between 07.06.2010 to 31.1.2011, be treated as on leave of the kind due to the petitioner as a special case. Not only this, the fact that this order of censure did not thereafter come in the way of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, is evident from Annexure P/26, in terms whereof, on 29.02.2020, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner along-with two other incumbents was promoted to the said post. 11. Therefore, in light of the fact that the petitioner conceded to the charges levelled against him and prayed for a lenient view to be taken in the matter and indeed a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority by censuring the petitioner and warning him not to repeat such things in future, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, cannot be said to be bad in law from any perspective. 12. 12. In this backdrop, the order passed by the Appellate Authority also, which itself is a self-speaking order, relevant portion whereof, I have already quoted hereinabove, can not be faulted with. Learned Appellate Authority quoted the instances of disobedience committed by the petitioner and held that as the petitioner deliberately did not follow the orders of the seniors, therefore, there was no justification in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 13. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the Appellate Authority for the reason that once the petitioner had conceded to his guilt before the Disciplinary Authority and a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority, the non-interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by the Appellate Authority, has to be respected. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority suffer from illegality, has no force and the said prayer is rejected. 14. Now, as far as the contention of the petitioner that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, persons junior to him promoted is concerned, obviously, as these persons were promoted when disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner could not have been considered for promotion. The petitioner could have made out a grievance on this count, had it been a case that in the disciplinary proceedings, he stood exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority. In that eventuality, the petitioner obviously would have been entitled for promotion as from the day when the persons junior to him were promoted, subject to him being found fit for promotion. 15. In the present case, unfortunately for the petitioner, this eventuality never arose. The petitioner himself admitted to his guilt. On his request, a lenient view was taken by the Authority, but the Authority did not exonerate him. The petitioner was censured and he was also warned. Therefore, in light of this fact, obviously, the petitioner did not have any right of retrospective promotion and the petitioner cannot claim any such relief from this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the denial of promotion to the petitioner during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, when persons junior to him were promoted, is bad in law. 16. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the denial of promotion to the petitioner during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, when persons junior to him were promoted, is bad in law. 16. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.