Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78364-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 752 of 2022 Appellant :- Union Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Ex. Constable Radhey Raman Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar,Yashodanand Shukla Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner against his dismissal from service. The respondent-petitioner was employed as a constable in C.R.P.F. He was reported to have unauthorizedly absented from service for a period of 29 days. Learned Single Judge after elaborately examining the facts of the case has come to the conclusion that nature of accusations against the writ petitioner was such which at best could have resulted in imposition of minor punishment and dismissal of respondent-petitioner from service is wholly disproportionate. The respondent-petitioner since is due to superannuate in a few years from now, as such learned Single Judge has granted him the relief of reinstatement with back wages. He has, however, been denied salary for 3 months towards punishment. 2. In the facts of the case, we find that substantial justice has been done to the cause brought by the writ petitioner before this Court. The writ petitioner had already worked for more than eight years and except for his absence of 29 days no other charge was ever levelled upon him. His services have remained throughout satisfactory. The writ petitioner had otherwise furnished reasonable explanation for the absence i.e. illness of family members which was not seriously disputed by the employer on the basis of any credible material. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The view taken by learned Single Judge that a minor punishment was adequate and dismissal from service is found disproportionate is clearly found to have reasonable basis in law. Punishment of dismissal from service is substituted by denial of salary to him for three months. However, as the respondent- petitioner has admittedly not worked since 1992, we feel that award of full back wages would not be justified. In the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to modify the relief by providing that the respondent shall only be entitle to 50% of the back wages. He will, however, be entitled to continuity in service and other benefits. 4. Special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad