JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this writ petition : (i) That the order of dismissal dated 11.2.1991 and 31.8.1991 be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. and he be treated in service continuously. (iii) That the salary of 47 days i.e. 2.6.1990 to 18.7.1990 be given to the petitioner and this period of 47 days be adjusted against his earned leave. 2. The facts mentioned in the writ are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in the year 1972 and was given belt No. 1260. In the year 1990 he was posted at Police lines Ajmer. When the petitioner was on leave from 2.6.1990 to 17.7.1990 on account of illness, a notice dated 20.6.1990 was served. on the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to present himself on duty but on account of illness the petitioner could not reply the said notice. Thereafter chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Raj. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the CCA Rules) dated 15.9.1990 was issued to him stating that the petitioner had absconded from duty from 2.6.1990 to 18.7.1990 and after concluding the inquiry, enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. . The enquiry officer observed A hat the petitioner wilfully absconded from duty from 2.6.1990 in 18.7.1990. The plea of the petitioner that he was suffering from some mental imbalance was rejected. The Medical certificate filed by the petitioner was also disbelieved and it was further observed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The disciplinary authority affirmed the fording of the enquiry officer vide order dated 11.2.1991 and the petitioner was dismissed from service and his salary from 2.6.1990 to 18.7.1990 was ordered to be forfeited. Assailing the said order the petitioner permitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ajmer Range, which was decided vide order dated 31.8.1991 with the finding that the petitioner was not suffering from illness and he fabricated story of illness to hide his negligence. Thus the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was justified and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. 3. Thus the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was justified and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner has explained the delay of two years in filing this writ petition and challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply mind to various alternative penalties mentioned in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. Looking to the nature and magnitude of charge, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were duty bound to apply mind in making selection of penalty for good and sufficient reasons, talking into account all vital consideration and gravity of charge, its consequences, working conditions of delinquent and circumstances related to commission of misconduct. Non- application of mind on.the part of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The non-petitioners submitted reply to the writ petition and supported the impugned orders. It has been contended that the petitioner has been a habitual absconder and he has been dismissed from service in accordance with law. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned orders. A perusal of charge sheet served upon the petitioner reveals that the only charge against him is that he wilfully absconded from duty since 2.6.190 to 18.7.1990. While passing the order dated 11.2.1991 Annexure-2, the Superintendent of Police Ajmer did not believe the reply as well as the documents submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of said order reveals that the petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his contention, and on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner the said order was passed. The observation of S.P. Ajmer that the petitioner obtained false certificate is not based on any evidence. It was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police Ajmer to summon and examine the concerned doctor who issued the certificate before arriving at the conclusion that the said certificate was false. Similarly the observations that the petitioner was habitual absconder is not based on any evidence. There is nothing on record to show that on earlier dates the petitioner had absconded from duty. The logic given in the said order with regard to disbelieving of medical certificate of doctor, appears to be funny. Similarly the observations that the petitioner was habitual absconder is not based on any evidence. There is nothing on record to show that on earlier dates the petitioner had absconded from duty. The logic given in the said order with regard to disbelieving of medical certificate of doctor, appears to be funny. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Ajmer while adjudicating the appeal of the petitioner also did not care to appreciate that the doctor who issued the medical certificate was not examined as a witness in the enquiry by the enquiry officer. The judgment dated 31.8.1991 Annexure-8 of Deputy Inspector General of Police Ajmer Range is nothing but only reproduction of the finding of the disciplinary authority. 7. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides for penalties : "14. Nature of Penalties.- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government Servant, namely : (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) insolvency from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order; (iv). reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or in a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the" case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension; (vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment; (vii) dismissed from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment." 8. In essence rule 14 of the CCA Rules enjoined duty upon the competent authority to determine which of the penalty enumerated in the rules is to be imposed upon the delinquent employee. In other words, to decide means to give rational judgment after considering the pros and cons of the matter as the rule in terms enjoins a duty upon the competent authority to make selection of the penalty `for good and sufficient reasons' the competent authority is bound to apply its mind to all the relevant aspects of the case. In other words, to decide means to give rational judgment after considering the pros and cons of the matter as the rule in terms enjoins a duty upon the competent authority to make selection of the penalty `for good and sufficient reasons' the competent authority is bound to apply its mind to all the relevant aspects of the case. In R.S.R.T.C. and Others v. Shri Ram Yadav [1995(2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 16 the Division Bench of this court observed as under : "The order itself must show that all the relevant aspects have entered into consideration in rendering the decision by a process of ratiocination. It is only when the order itself gives a clue of the factors which have weighed with the competent authority in deciding upon the punishment of removal from service that one can say that there has been application of mind." 9. A perusal of the impugned orders reveal that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not applied judicious mind and have not made selection of penalty for good and sufficient reasons without applying mind to the relevant aspect of the case. The services of the petitioner have been terminated after disbelieving the explanation given by him as well as the medical certificate submitted by him. The presenting officer had not controverted the medical certificate by submitting any further document or by producing any oral evidence. However, looking to the nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had to make selection of the penalty for good and sufficient reasons and the order of punishment passed through impugned orders was not just and proper. 10. Consequently I partly allow this writ petition and modified (sic-modify) the punishment orders Annexure 2 and 3 and instead of termination of service of the petitioner, the penalty of withholding of three grades increments with future effect is imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service immediately latest by September 5, 1996. If the petitioner is not actually reinstated in service by the aforesaid date he shall be entitled to claim full salary from 6.9.1996. If the petitioner is not actually reinstated in service by the aforesaid date he shall be entitled to claim full salary from 6.9.1996. The petitioner shall be paid 50 per cent of the arrears of salary by calculating as he was throughout in service during the interregnum and was entitled to all the benefits which he would have earned had he been in service. The arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioner latest by 30.9.86. (Sic. 96) If the amount of arrears is not paid by the aforesaid date it shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of judgment till amount is paid. In the facts and circumstances of the case the costs made easy.Writ Petition Partly Allowed. *******