The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed should be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and the punishing authority must consider procedural safeguards and relevant factors in determining the quantum of punishment.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the orders dated 4. 7. 1996, 19. 2. 1998 and 26. 3. 1998 (Annexures-7a, 9 and 10 to the writ petition), i. e. , dismissal order dated 4. 7. 1996 (Annexure-7a) by S. S. P. , order dated 19. 2. 1998 (Annexure-9) rejecting the appeal by D. I. G. and order dated 26. 3. 1998 (Annexure-10) rejecting the revision by Inspector General of Police. Heard Sri K. M. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a permanent constable of Civil Police and after putting more than 22 years in service on transfer from Allahabad to Jalaun was supposed to join on 12. 7. 1995. It appears that petitioner got ill and information about his illness was given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad on 10. 7. 1995 through U. P. C. , on request of the petitioners wife, the D. I. G. stayed the transfer order on 31. 7. 1995 for a period of one year. On submission of a medical certificate of Dr. D. K. Srivastava, of M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad, the petitioner was allowed to join on 29. 10. 1995. It appears a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 19. 12. 1996 by the Assistant superintendent of Police {annexure-1 to the writ petition) and a decision was taken to permit the petitioner to avail leave without pay for 109 days, i. e. , from 4. 7. 1995 to 29. 10. 1995 with censure notice. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 27. 1. 1996 mainly on the ground that he was absented from the duty for 109 days without giving information to the respondents committed negligence and dereliction in duty. The reply of the petitioner was submitted before the Inquiry Officer on 26. 2. 1996. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, recommended for a minor punishment of reduction to the minimum in the petitioners pay scale for a period of three years (Annexure -5 to the writ petition ). The disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, allahabad disagreeing with the Inquiry report, issued a show cause notice dated 27. 4. 1996 to the petitioner for a major punishment of dismissal, after obtaining the reply of the petitioner on 25. 5,1996, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 4. 7. 1996 (Annexure-7a) disagreeing with the inquiry report, inflicted major penalty of dismissal, without examining the concerned doctor or to get his certificate verified by the C. M. O. (Chief Medical Officer) by its order dated 4. 7. 1996. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 19. 2. 1998 by the D. I. G. , Allahabad Range (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) affirming the dismissal order. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 26. 3. 1998 by Inspector general of Police, Allahabad Zone (Annexure-10 to the writ petition ). These three orders are impugned in the present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner neither informed nor applied for any kind of leave for his ailment and remained absent continuously even on information dates of inquiry for 8. 3. 1996 and 15. 3. 1996, the petitioner did not turn up where he was expected to produce the evidence and submit the names and address of witnesses for cross-examination. It was pointed out that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 27. 3. 1996 saying that he might not place any other defence except the reply dated 22. 2. 1996. According to the respondents, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity but, he neither produced any evidence in his defence nor participated in the enquiry proceedings. It has been averred In the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was in a habit of making absence for which he was punished several times for his unauthorised absence. Therefore, the inquiry officer was correct in giving his report o