Manisana, J. — In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal passed on 10.7.82 by the Commandant 46 Bn CRPF, Shillong dismissing the petitioner from his services. 2. The dismissal order was appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 12.1.83. Against the order of the appellate authority, a revision petition was filed to the Inspector General of CRPF, Calcutta. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Inspector General on 9.9.83. 3. It appears from the records that the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in OR Case No. 675 (S) of 1981 under section 304-A, 3 7 and 427, IPC. The Chief Judicial ' Magistrate acquitted the petitioner on all of the charges after trial. 4. At this stage it will be helpful to refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court. In R. P. Bhatt vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1040 , the Supreme Court has, while considering Rule 27 (2) of CCS (C & A) Rules, 1965, held :- “The word 'consider' in R. 27 (2) implies 'due application of mind.' It is clear upon the terms of R. 27 (2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with ; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice ; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is , adequate and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27 (2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in CJs. (a), (b) and (c) thereof.” 5. In Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 the Supreme Court has held- “It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commen­surate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 6. In Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386 . In Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386 . the Supreme Court has held that judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but it is directed against the "decision making process." The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the Court-Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. The doctrine of proportionality is a part of the concept of the judicial review. 7. A perusal of the appellate order of the authority shows that the appellate authority has considered whether the procedure for holding enquiry has been complied with and has held that there was no violation of any provisions of the Rules or principles of natural justice. But the appellate authority has not given the findings as to whether the finding of the disciplinary are warranted by the evidence on record. The disciplinary authority has also not considered whether the penalty imposed is proportionate to gravity and misconduct or negligence. 8. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the orders of the DIOP and the IGP are liable to be quashed and the matter is to be sent back to the DIGP for disposal of the appeal afresh. 9. It will also be relevant to refer in the context of the present case to a decision of the Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur vs. Ram Chandra, AIR 1984 SC 636 . In that case the Supreme Court has held- “The other question that remains is if the respondents are acquitted in the criminal ca*e whether or not the departmental inquiry pending against the respondents would have to continue. This is the matter which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the findings given by the Criminal Court. Normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds of evidence but the fact remains, however, the merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor its direction ( discretion ) in any way fettered.” 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 20.12.83 passed by the DIGP, CRPF Mathura and order dated 9.9.83 passed by the IGP, CRPF Calcutta are set aside. The appellate authority, namely DIGP, Mathura, is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh in the light of the above observations and direction keeping in mind the observa­tions of the Supreme Court made in Corporation of the City of Nagpur's case (supra.) 11. With the above observations and direction the petition is allowed and disposed of. No costs. J. Sangma, J. — I agree.