ORDER The petitioner, a constable under the State proceeded on two days casual leave on 8.12.1995 but did not, report duty thereafter and joined the duty after 106 days on 26.3.1996. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence from duty over stay for 106 days without information vide charge-sheet dated 21 .4.1997 in which the petitioner took part. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner produced medical certificates etc. to show that he having fallen ill, could not join duty. The enquiry officer taking into consideration all the evidences discarded the version of the petitioner, as the petitioner initially reported that he was suffering from Kalazar and the certificates were placed showing him suffering from Jaundice. The charge of unauthorised absence from duty for 106 days was held to be proved. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the enquiry report, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service vide impugned order dated 21.8.1997 (Annexure-5). The appeal preferred by petitioner was also rejected on 20.10.1997. Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised the question of quantum of punishment by assailing the order of punishment. According to the respondents, the petitioner proceeded on two days casual leave and after expiry wilfully overstayed for 106 days. He did not send any information about his sickness, nor reported for duty in spite of notices issued to him. On rejoining, he informed that he was suffering from Kalazar but in the proceeding, it was intimated that he was suffering from Jaundice. As the petitioner was found unwilling and unauthorized absence from his duty, the order of dismissal was passed after following the procedures. Similar case fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Ram Deo Singh vrs. State of Bihar & ors. (unreported) in C.W.J.C. no. 3154/95, disposed of on 17.10.95. In the said case, charge was levelled for unauthorised absence from duty for a period of 105 days (in this case it is 106 days). In the said case of Ram Deo Singh (supra), this Court took into consideration the order passed in the case of one Vishwanath Singh, who remained unauthorised absence for a period of 195 days but inflicted with punishment of one black mark. In the said case of Ram Deo Singh (supra), this Court took into consideration the order passed in the case of one Vishwanath Singh, who remained unauthorised absence for a period of 195 days but inflicted with punishment of one black mark. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service is not only disproportionate to the gravity of the charge but was discriminatory as in other case (of Vishwanath Singh), punishment of black mark was inflicted for unauthorised absence from duty for 195 days. In the present case of the petitioner as the allegation is of unauthorised absence from duty for 106 days like that of Ram Deo Singh (supra), following the aforesaid decision, I hold the order of punishment dated 21.8.1997 as harsh and disproportionate. The said order of punishment being also discriminatory, having lesser punishment inflicted to other (Vishwanath Singh), the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, I set aside the order of punishment dated 21.8. 1997: (Annexure-5) and the appellate order dated 20.10.97 (annexure-6) and remit the matter to the authorities to pass appropriate order, proportionate to the gravity of charge, in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations/directions.