Dismissal for unauthorized absence is disproportionate when caused by extraordinary family tragedies and personal bereavement.

The petitioner, a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), was granted 15 days of casual leave ending on 10.12.2017

He failed to resume duty for 166 days due to the terminal illness and subsequent death of his son, followed by the death of his mother and depression

The Commandant, 31 B.N. BSF, Tripura, issued a show-cause notice and subsequently dismissed the petitioner from service effective 25.03.2018, treating the absence as "Dies Non"

The petitioner’s departmental appeal and subsequent representation were rejected by the I.G. and D.I.G. of BSF Tripura, respectively

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, as the proceedings occurred in Tripura

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Patna High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution when the disciplinary proceedings and orders originated outside the state

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service for 166 days of unauthorized absence is disproportionate given the extenuating personal circumstances

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which empowers a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territorial jurisdiction

The court relied on Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014) regarding the definition of "cause of action" as a bundle of facts necessary to prove a right to judgment

The court followed the precedent in Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Tiwary v. The Union of India Ors. (LPA No. 617 of 2019), which held that dismissal for overstaying leave due to family medical emergencies is disproportionate and requires a sympathetic approach

On jurisdiction, the court found that because the show-cause notice was served at the petitioner's native address in Bihar, his reply was sent from there, and the dismissal order was communicated to him in Bihar, a "part cause of action" arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court

Furthermore, the court noted that since the petition had been pending for six years, relegating the petitioner to the Tripura/Guwahati High Court would constitute a "travesty of justice"

On the merits, the court observed that the petitioner's absence was not "willful negligence" but was compelled by the tragic deaths of his son and mother

The court reasoned that a disciplined force must maintain rigor, but the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charge of 166 days of absence under such extreme domestic hardship

The matter was relegated to Respondent No. 4 (Commandant) to reconsider the claim afresh and pass a more appropriate order in light of the "unfortunate mishappenings" described