JUDGMENT The State of M.P. has come up in second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3X 1987 passed by District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/82 whereby in reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellate Court has decreed the plaintiff /respondent's suit seeking declaration of the order of his dismissal from service as null and void with consequential direction to the appellants reinstating the respondent with all ancillary benefits. The plaintiff/respondent was employed as a constable in Special Armed Forces and posted at Guna at the material time. The respondent was reported between 12.10.1980 and 14.10.1980 and sitting on indefinite hunger strike agitating his demands during this period, a show cause notice was issued to him, imputing therein certain acts amounting to a henious offence within the meaning of section 16 (a) of the M.P. Vishesh Sashatra Bal Adhiniyam, 1968. Departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent by one Apte and later on by one G.S. Rathore. The enquiry resulted in finding the guilt proved. Ultimately, an order of dismissal was passed against the respondent. There was yet another Constable named Shivaji Rao who too faced an identical enquiry on identical allegations with identical results. It appears that he too had instituted a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court and his appeal registered as C.A. No. 15-N/82 was disposed of on the same day on which the appeal of the present respondent was disposed of by the District Judge, with an identical relief to the respondent therein. Identical questions of facts and law have arisen in both these cases. In the case of Shivaji Rao too, the State of M.P. had come up in appeal registered as S.A. No. 153/87 disposed of by S.K. Dubey, J. on 30.4.1990 decision wherein has been brought to the notice of this Court. Having given my anxious consideration to that decision of this Court, I see no reason to take a different view in the matter of this appeal and several questions arising therein for decision. The rule of consistency, apart from the rule or precedents, demands that the case of the present respondent should not be treated with any distinction and the parties herein too deserve to he granted a similar relief at the hands of this Court as has been granted in Shivaji Rao's case. The rule of consistency, apart from the rule or precedents, demands that the case of the present respondent should not be treated with any distinction and the parties herein too deserve to he granted a similar relief at the hands of this Court as has been granted in Shivaji Rao's case. For the reasons stated in the judgment dated 30.4.1990 passed in S.A. No. 153/87 (1990 MPJR 351) and agreeing with the law laid down therein, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that a just and fair relief to he granted to the plaintiff/respondent would he to reinstate him with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages with a further direction that three annual increments with future affect shall be withheld. The appeal stands disposed of with direction in the abovesaid terms.