JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Original Order dated 04.02.2004 passed by Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the punishment of dismissal has been inflicted upon the petitioner. 3. As per pleading and argument, the petitioner’s husband/father was appointed as a constable in Bihar Military Police in the year 1986. The petitioner took leave for the period from 17.04.2002 to 30.04.2002. He was suffering mental illness and as such he could not join the duty within time i.e. on 18.12.2003. On submission of joining, he had been given command dated 04.01.2004 to join at Balumath Police Station. After joining Balumath Police Station, the petitioner again fall ill and become absent without leave for the period till 30.04.2005. In the meantime, he had received order of dismissal dated 25.02.2004 along with enquiry report. 4. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal and appellate authority had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.05.2005, on the ground of limitation. The original petitioner preferred the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 86 of 2013 against the Appellate Authority and Original Authority and this Court vide order dated 02.12.2013 remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the claim of the original petitioner, afresh taking into consideration the plea of mental illness also. 5. The Appellate Authority after considering the matter, had rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2014 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed and as per counter affidavit, the petitioner was suspended from the service vide order dated 29.01.2003, and a departmental proceeding was initiated. Memo of charge dated 23.02.2003 has been sent to the petitioner through registered post. 6. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report and finding of guilt has been recorded. On such finding, order has been passed by the Original Authority dated 04.02.2004, dismissing the petitioner from the service. 7. It is admitted position that the petitioner has been show caused on charge of absence without leave w.e.f. 17.04.2002. Enquiry is upon absence. The order of punishment has been passed accordingly. The Appellate Authority on remand had taken into consideration the entire service of the petitioner. The past absence and order of punishment has also been taken into consideration. 7. It is admitted position that the petitioner has been show caused on charge of absence without leave w.e.f. 17.04.2002. Enquiry is upon absence. The order of punishment has been passed accordingly. The Appellate Authority on remand had taken into consideration the entire service of the petitioner. The past absence and order of punishment has also been taken into consideration. Thus the appellate authority has transgressed its jurisdiction by considering the charges which were not served upon the petitioner. The enquiry is ex-parte. 8. Since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and also died. The widow and daughter is now pursuing the writ before this Court. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment reported in 2017 (4) SCC 507 , has held that the overstay is not a ground for dismissal. Para-19 of said judgment is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- “Though we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the penalty of dismissal from service is not commensurate with delinquency. The respondent was found guilty of desertion of the Force for a period of five days and not improving his conduct in spite of imposition of penalties on three occasions earlier. For the above delinquencies, the penalty of dismissal from service is excessive and harsh. In our view, the penalty of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice. We are informed by the counsel for the appellants that the respondent is entitled for pension as he has completed 10 years of service. In order to avoid any controversy, we direct that the respondent shall be entitled for notional continuity of service till the date of completion of minimum service required to make him eligible for pension. He will not be entitled for payment of salary and allowances for that period.” 10. The petitioner had served the respondents for 16 years. There is no misconduct other than the absence from duty. The dismissal from the service is the punishment which erases the birth of the petitioner in the service. The entire service period is erased further he is not eligible for any public employment, such outrageous punishment cannot be granted on the ground of overstay. 11. In the fact of the present case, the order of dismissal has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on the ground of past conduct as well as overstay. 12. The entire service period is erased further he is not eligible for any public employment, such outrageous punishment cannot be granted on the ground of overstay. 11. In the fact of the present case, the order of dismissal has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on the ground of past conduct as well as overstay. 12. Rule 826 of Jharkhand Police Manual is quoted hereinbelow:- “826. Discrimination necessary in awarding punishments. The punishment awarded should be in confirmity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged and offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong doings. It should also be borne in mind that the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment. 13. The objective of awarding punishment is firstly to keep a record of the wrong doings of the officer and secondly as a measure of correction to alert him to improve his work and conduct. Several punishments awarded in one lot such as during inspections which do not provide an opportunity to the delinquent officer to improve himself are not likely to be helpful. In any case, the punishment cannot be awarded without carefully considering the defence of the delinquent officer. 14. Before issuing orders of minor punishment, it is necessary to apprise the delinquent of the substance of the charges against him and he should be given adequate opportunity for defence. After this has been ensured, the punishment can be awarded. However in the case of major punishments (see Rule 828) formal proceedings in P M. Form no. 178 will have to be drawn up.” 15. Thus, the appellate authority has travelled beyond the authorization by considering past record, not changed in present proceeding. 16. As per this Court, the order of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the memo of charge. 17. In view of above discussion, the impugned order of dismissal is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to consider the quantum of punishment in the light of discussion made hereinabove. 18. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.