Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39987-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63006 of 2015 Petitioner :- Avinash Prakash Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Pathak,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. This petition arises out of orders passed by the authorities dismissing the petitioner from service, which has been affirmed in appeal and revision. Claim petition filed before the UP Public Service Tribunal No.237 of 2013 has also been rejected. Thus, aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in PAC. He was posted at 37-Battalion Kanpur in the year 2011. He was transferred from Kanpur to Sonbhadra on 5.7.2011. Petitioner submits his official uniform as per the standard procedure was got deposited with the 37 Battaliion at Kanpur. The petitioner thereafter joined at Sonbhadra. The only charge against the petitioner is that on 15.8.2011 during the flag-hoisting ceremony, he appeared in plane cloths. According to the respondents, the petitioner was in a T-shirt and half-pant. This act of the petitioner has been treated as an act of misconduct clulminating in passing of the orders impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was transferred on 5.7.2011 and his official uniform was got deposited at the store in Kanpur, he was not having his official uniform, which he could have worn on 15th August, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the report of inquiry officer at page 63 in which the circumstance of petitioner not possessing the uniform and consequently his compulsion in participating in the flag-hoisting in plain uniform was highlighted. The questions posed by the petitioner to the concerned official and the reply in that regard reads as under: "उतर- आरकक अववननश पकनश पनठक नन ममखखक रप सन बतनयन वक मनरन पनस वरर नहह हह मम पनइवनट मम हक पनशक मम जनऊऊ गन। पश- कयन आपनन रलननयक कक वरर न हकनन कक जननकनरक रक थक? उतर- नहह रक थक। पश- वरर पहनकर आनन कन आरनश वकसकन थन? उतर- शकमनन रलननयक महकरय कन आरनश थन। पश- पनथर कक खसववल डडनस मम रलननयक कन समक पनश हकनन कन कनरण कयन थन? उतर- इनहहनन अवगत करनयन थन वक मनरन पनस वरर नहह हह। मम रलननयक महकरय कन समक पनइवनट मम हक जनऊऊ गन। पश- इस पर रलननयक महकरय नन कयन आरनश वरयन? उतर- महकरय दनरन बतनयन वक जहसन आनन चनहम आ जनयन। पश- ई रल सक.एच.एम. हकनन कन ननतन आरकक कन पनस वरर न हकनन कक रशन मम आपनन कयन कनयरवनहक कक? उतर- मनरन पनस खलखखत ककई पनथरनन- पत नहह थन, खजससन ककई कनयरवनहक नहह कक गयक।" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has been working satisfactorily since 1998 and but for this incident, there has been no complaint against his working. Submission is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances is wholly disproportionate and excessive and is otherwise unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of the respondents, who contends that showing disrespect to the National Flag is a serious offence and, therefore, dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is also urged that due opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the orders. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities as affirmed in appeal and revision as well as the order of the Tribunal. It remains undisputed that the only charge against the petitioner was of attending the flag-hoisting ceremony on 15.8.2011 at Sonbhadra in plain cloths. The petitioner's contention that he had been transferred from Kanpur on 5.7.2011 where he had deposited his uniform in the store has not been questioned. Even otherwise, we find that the act attributed to the petitioner cannot be construed as so serious so as to justify passing of an order of dismissal from service. The respondents themselves do not dispute the fact that petitioner had saluted the National Flag. His explanation in not wearing the official uniform as it had been got deposited in the store at Kanpur and fresh uniform was not made available has also not been accorded consideration in correct perspective. The routine manner in which the order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner and has been affirmed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 7. We may record that authorities even though have the jurisdiction to impose minor or major punishment upon a delinquent employee, but their action in imposing such punishment must remain commensurate with the nature of allegation or the proved charge against the employee concerned. Mere attending the flag- hoisting ceremony in plain cloths could have been viewed seriously, but in our opinion, imposition of an order of major punishment for such purposes was wholly disproportionate. There does not appear to be any conscious application of mind to the facts of the case by the authorities. 8. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the orders impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. Since sufficient time has otherwise passed and petitioner has been sufficiently punished, we do not deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order. 9. In the facts of the case, the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of continuity of service, but as he has admittedly not worked, we award him back-wages to the extent of 50%. Petitioner will be allowed to join his duties within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad