JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. 1. Jagat Pal Singh was a Constable in the Police. He had certain grievances against the authorities and he submitted representations to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Range) and also to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID) but had not sent them through the Superintendent of Police. For this act, the petitioner was served with a charge- sheet dated 26-6-1972, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The charge no. 1 pertains to the making of representations and the charge no. 2 cited instances of petitioner's previous conduct on the basis of which action had been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and an enquiry was held and (the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order of the Superintendent of Police dated 26-11-1972 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was rejected by an order dated 23-1-1973. The petitioner then preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Police which in its turn was rejected by the Inspector General of Police by his order dated 22-4-1976. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities the petitioner preferred a reference petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal which was numbered as Reference No. 927 (ii)/76 and which was dismissed by the Services Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that there was no defect in the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner and on this finding it dismissed the reference petition. 4. Aggrieved the petitioner had instituted the present writ petition. The only charge on which the action has been found to have been taken against the petitioner is the act of the petitioner in sending the representations to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Range) and also to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID) directly and not through the Superintendent of Police. The Police Regulations contemplate the petition being addressed by the Sub- ordinate Police Officers to the Superior Officers through immediate Officer. Police Regulation 514 (a) runs as follows :- "514. The Police Regulations contemplate the petition being addressed by the Sub- ordinate Police Officers to the Superior Officers through immediate Officer. Police Regulation 514 (a) runs as follows :- "514. A police officer who has any official grievance other than one covered by the rules relating to appeal and applications for revision given above may present a petition under the following rules : (a) The petition should, in the first place, be addressed to the officer of the lowest rank who is empowered to pass the desired order. A petition addressed to a higher authority in contravention of this rule will be summarily rejected. It must be preferred within three months of the date on which the officer submitting the petition was informed of the order against which he petitions, provided that the authority to whom the petition is submitted may extend the time-limit to six months if he is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by unavoidable circumstances, beyond his control from petitioning within the prescribed limit of three months. " 5. The consequence of sending a petition to a higher authority in contravention of the rules is the summary rejection of the petition. No other consequence is provided. It is not stated in Regulation 514 la) that a disciplinary proceeding can be taken against the Police Officer for sending a petition in violation of the provisions of Regulation 514 (a). 6. The action against the petitioner has been taken under Section 7 of the Police Act. Section 7 (1) provides that the officers mentioned therein may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce in rank any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same. The act of the petitioner for which he was punished cannot be either said to be remissness in the discharge of duties or negligent in the discharge of duties. Under the other part a police officer can also be dismissed if the authorities concerned find him unfit for the same. No finding had been recorded that the petitioner is unfit to be retained in service. In any case the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, namely sending of representations directly to the higher authorities. Such a punishment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No finding had been recorded that the petitioner is unfit to be retained in service. In any case the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, namely sending of representations directly to the higher authorities. Such a punishment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. See in this connection a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 442 . The Police Regulations also indicate the circumstances in which an order of dismissal may be made. Paragraph 481 of the Police Regulations, in so far as it is relevant, runs as follows : " 481. An order of dismissal will be passed only when an officer's conduct renders his retention in the force undesirable. Dismissal must necessarily follow a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and should, as a rule, follow a conviction for intentionally or negligently allowing a prisoner to escape from custody, even if the accused is sentenced, to a fine.........." 7. Under the Police Regulations an order of dismissal will only be made if it is undesirable to retain an officer in service or if he is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced. This paragraph indicates that the nature of offence for which a dismissal order can be made, should be of a very serious nature. A dismissal is not to be made for every act of misconduct, 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-11-1972 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 20-8-1980 of the Service Tribunal (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) are quashed. The petitioner will be deemed to be in service. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.