The punishment imposed on a government employee must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Heard Sri Vikram Nath learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the respondents.

In this petition prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 3-6-1999, November 1992 and 4-1- 1992 passed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Annexures-8, 10 and 12 to the writ petition) and for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances, seniority, promotion etc.

2. With the consent of the parties the present writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage in view of Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition according to the petitioner are that he was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF ). After successfully completing the training he was posted in the 68th Battalion. , C. R. P. F. on 30-9-1983 and he was sent on deputation to the 7th Battalion of Delhi Armed Police, Delhi where he joined on 26-9-1988. The petitioner was also repatriated to his Parent department in 68th Battalion C. R. P. F. , however the repatriation order was not served upon the petitioner as he had fallen sick and he was admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A. I. I. M. S.) New Delhi for treatment. The Deputy Commissioner of 7th Battalion Delhi Armed Police issued absentee notice on 28-6-1990 to the petitioner at his Ballia address through Superintendent of Police, Ballia requiring the petitioner to report on duty. Since the petitioner was ailing and after fully recovering from the illness he reported for duly on 26-2-1991. The Delhi Armed Police instead of immediately relieving the petitioner pursuant to the repatriation order dated 15-6- 1990, allowed him to join without intimating him of the repatriation order dated 15-6-1990. The Deputy Commissioner, 7th Battalion, Delhi Armed Police passed an order on 5-3-1991 to hold departmental inquiry with regard to the absence of the petitioner and for that purpose Inspector Hari Bhushan was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After him Shri Sube Singh, Inspector was assigned the work of Inquiry Officer, who submitted report on 7-6-1991 whereby the petitioner was held guilty of unauthorised absence. The Deputy Commissioner, Delhi Armed Police passed an order on 12-6-1991 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department in sequence of his earlier order dated 15-6-1990 where the petitioner joined on 15-6-1991. However, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 27-10-1991 in respect of the inquiry report above mentioned and in sequence to it the Commandant 68th Battalion C. R. P. F. passed an order on 4-1-1992 under Section 27a-1 of the C. R. P. F. Rules, 1965 (in short called rules, 1965 hereinafter) dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under the service rules in November, 1992 was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. However the Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , New Delhi dismissed the revision of the petitioner on 3-6-1999.

4. According to the petitioner since he was dismissed from service while posted at Jalandhar, Punjab, the appeal was dismissed by the D. I. G. , C. R. P. F. , Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and the revision was decided by

Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , Lodi Complex, Lodi Road, Delhi, in these circumstances, the order passed by appellate authority and revisional authority were served to the petitioner at his permanent place of residence i. e. district Ballia which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court and since the appellate and revisional order was only meaningful and affective order, the cause of action has arisen between the territory of this Court and the writ petition could be heard by this Court in reference to the Judgment of this Court (D. B.) 2003 (Vol. 52) Allahabad Law Reports Page 92, Saroj Mahanta v