A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgement and the decree passed by the learned Judge of Court no. 11 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on 31st July 1987 in Civil Suit No. 319 of 1983 are under challenge in this First Appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff. It is needless to say that thereby the suit came to be dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein was subjected to some departmental enquiry with respect to his having spent two nights on two different dates in September 1971 with one Hansa @ harshadbala @ Hasina though they were not united by a matrimonial tie. It was also the case against him that he was on sick leave during the relevant period, and yet he showed in the register of the Pathikashram as on duty. The charge against him was also to the effect that at the time of the fust night-halt at the Pathikashram in Gandhinagar he did not pay the requisite charges but he paid up the said charges at the time of his second visit thereto. His defence was not accepted in the departmental enquiry. He was punished with the order of removal. That order was set aside in Civil Suit No. 2527 of 1978 by the City civil Court at Ahmedabad and that decision was affirmed in appeal before this Court in first Appeal No. 1162 of 1980. The order of his removal from service was upset on the ground that the punishing authority was not his appointing authority and the Court permitted the department to proceed further from the stage of what is popularly known as the second show-cause notice. After considering his representation to the second show-cause notice, respondent no. 2 herein passed the order of removal of the appellant from service on 1st October 1981 (the impugned order for convenience ). The appellants appeal and revision against the impugned order proved fruitless. He therefore instituted one Civil Suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad questioning the correctness of the impugned order. It came to be registered as Civil Suit No. 319 of 1983. The suit appears to have been assigned to the learned Judge of Court No. 11 of the City Civil Court at ahmedabad for trial and disposal. The respondents herein as the defendants filed their written statement at Exh. It came to be registered as Civil Suit No. 319 of 1983. The suit appears to have been assigned to the learned Judge of Court No. 11 of the City Civil Court at ahmedabad for trial and disposal. The respondents herein as the defendants filed their written statement at Exh. 22 on the record of the case and resisted the suit on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the necessary issues were raised at Exh. 23 on the record of the case. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned judge of Court No. 11 of the City Civil Court passed the judgement and the decree on 31st July 1987 in Civil Suit No. 319 of 1983 dismissing the suit. The aggrieved plaintiff has thereupon invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by means of this First appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 3 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the present appellant was that he had illicit relations with the lady, named, Hansa @ Harshdbala @ Hasina. It is an admitted position that they were not a married couple. At the most the lady could be styled as a mistress. Whether or not to keep a mistress is a misconduct was the question. In this connection a reference deserves to be made to the unreported ruling of this Court in Special Civil application No. 221 of 1983 decided on 24th September 1985. It has been held therein that the Conduct Rules of the Police Department from the Police Manual do not show that to have a mistress is a misconduct. This unreported ruling was in fact cited before the learned trial Judge. With respect, it was not proper for the learned trial Judge to have distinguished it on some flimsy and untenable grounds without properly appreciating the ratio laid down therein. The learned trial Judge ought to have carefully considered the aforesaid unreported ruling and to have considered its applicability to the facts of the case. The learned trial Judge was unnecessarily obsessed with the idea that illicit relations between a man and a woman, not united by matrimonial tie, would not mean that she was his mistress. The learned trial Judge ought to have consulted the dictionary for the purpose of ascertaining the correct meaning of the word mistress. The learned trial Judge was unnecessarily obsessed with the idea that illicit relations between a man and a woman, not united by matrimonial tie, would not mean that she was his mistress. The learned trial Judge ought to have consulted the dictionary for the purpose of ascertaining the correct meaning of the word mistress. In the Concise oxford Dictionary published by Oxford University Press (3rd Impression 1992) the word mistress is defined inter alia to mean a woman (other than his wife) with whom a married man has a sexual relation. Considering this dictionary meaning of the word mistress, there is no escape from, the conclusion that the lady accompanying the appellant at the relevant time would be his mistress. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid unreported ruling of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 221 of 1983 decided on 24th September 1985 will on all fours be applicable in the present case. The charge of misconduct on that ground cannot be said to have been proved against the present appellant. ( 4 ) IT is true that the appellant was guilty of showing himself as on duty in the register of the Pathikashram at Gandhinagar during his night-halt on both the occasions though he was on sick leave. He might have been tempted to do so in order to save some charges to be paid for his night-halts in question. It would certainly be a misconduct. It cannot however he said to be such a serious misconduct as would warrant the extreme penalty of economic death To award the extreme penalty of economic death for such a minor dereliction in duty would tantamount to imposing the capital sentence on a person found guilty of theft of Rs. 10 or so. With respect, the learned trial Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. The punishing authority also does not appear to have applied its mind in that regard. The extreme penalty of the appellants removal from service on such misconduct cannot be upheld. The order of punishement will have therefore to be upset. 10 or so. With respect, the learned trial Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. The punishing authority also does not appear to have applied its mind in that regard. The extreme penalty of the appellants removal from service on such misconduct cannot be upheld. The order of punishement will have therefore to be upset. ( 5 ) ORDINARILY, after upsetting the order of punishment on such ground, the matter would be required to be decided afresh by the authority for awarding proper punishment to the appellant for his having shown himself on duty in the register of the Pathikashram at Gandhinagar on two occasions for his night-hall thereat while he was on sick leave. Since the incident occurred in 1971 and since more than two decades have rolled by, I do not think it proper to permit the punishing authority to take any disciplinary action against the present appellant on that score. ( 6 ) IN the result, this appeal is accepted. The impugned order passed by the punishing authority as confirmed in departmental appeal and revision and also under the impugned decision of the trial court is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant will be considered to have remained in continuous service uninterrupted by the impugned order with all consequential benefits arising from such continuous and uninterrupted service. There shall be no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) CIVIL Application No. 2240 of 1987 has been filed in this First Appeal for protection of possession of the Government quarter allotted to the present appellant while in service. In view of this judgment of mine, the appellant is held to be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from his continuous and uninterrupted service. It is therefore not necessary to pass any separate order in the Civil Application. It accordingly stands disposed of however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. .