The main legal point established in this judgment is that the penalty imposed on an employee must be proportionate to the misconduct committed. The Court has the power to reduce penalties in cases of disproportionate punishment.

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge

dated 012.2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner against the dismissal order has been accepted in part and the dismissal order dated 24.05.1989 and the appellate order dated 24.02.1997 have been modified by imposing penalty of withholding six grade increment with future effect instead of dismissal. The learned Single Judge has also directed that 50% of back-wages be also paid from the date of filing the writ petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner-respondent was appointed as Constable in the Border Security Force on 13.06.1975. Thereafter, he was promoted from time to time. On 110.1988 the respondent-petitioner was sanctioned three days casual leave. After expiry of the said period of three days the respondent-petitioner did not turn up on duty and sent several applications and telegarm for extension of the leave on medical grounds. A show-cause notice was issued on 30.04.1989 against the proposed action of dismissal to the respondent-petitioner but it is stated that the same was not received by him. When the respondent-petitioner was declared fit, he reported on duty immediately on 22.05.1989 but he was not permitted to join the same. On 24.05.1989, the respondent-petitioner was dismissed under Rule 177 of BSF Rules for over staying 215 days leave by treating it was grave misconduct. It was also submitted in the writ petition that dismissal order has been passed without following the procedure of inquiry and further punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge of over staying leave.

3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the appellants. The receipt of the telegarm and application have not been denied by the appellant in Para No. 2. However, it has been submitted that the leave was refused and a communication was sent but still the respondent-petitioner did not turn up. It was submitted in the reply that misconduct is a grave misconduct for which no inquiry is necessary under Rule 20 in existence at the relevant time.

4. The appellants have also submitted that the services of the B.S.F. are para military services, therefore, strict discipline is to be maintained.

5. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties partly allowed the writ petition as detailed

out here-in-above. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced here under: -"6. A close look at the record demonstrates that no procedure prescribed under law was followed. It was incumbent on the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for his willful absence from duty but no such proceedings were ever initiated. Show-cause notice however was issued to the petitioner and even if issuance of show cause notice is treated as initiation of disciplinary proceedings, clue of the factors which had weighed with the competent authority in deciding upon the extreme punishment of termination, is missing in the impugned order. I am satisfied that the competent authority did not apply judicious mind in making selection of penalty in the instant case.

7. TheDivision Bench of this Court in RSRTC & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Yadav, 1995 (2) WLC (Raj.)

16, indicated thus: -"The order itself much show that all the relevant aspects have entered into consideration in rendering the decision by a process of ratiocination. It is only when the order itself gives a clue of the factors which have weighed with the competent authority in deciding upon the punishment of removal from service that one can say that there has been application of mind."

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that imposition of punishment of termination from service on the petitioner for overstaying leave is shockingly dis-proportionate and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Mr. V.K. Joshi placed reliance on various authority