ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the respondent, (a Constable in Punjab Armed Police), wherein he assailed the validity of the t Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19501 of 1991 order of dismissal from service dated 6-4-1978 passed in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in respect of the charge of his having been absent from duty without leave during the period from 20-7-1977 to 16- 9- a 1977. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the Additional District Judge, by his judgment and decree dated 4-2- 1985, decreed the said suit and set aside the said order of dismissal on two grounds, viz., (i) the respondent was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service; and (ii) there was no finding by the punishing authority that the misconduct attributed to the respondent amounted to the gravest act of misconduct in terms of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The High Court, in second appeal, did not agree with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on ground (i) about affording personal hearing to the respondent, but it agreed with the finding recorded by tyhe Additional District Judge on ground (ii) that the punishment of dismissal could not be imposed since the punishing authority did not record a finding that the misconduct attributed to the respondant amounted to the gravest act of misconduct. The High Court has, therefore, affirmed the decree passed by the Additional District Judge. 4. Shri H. S. Munjral, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that even if it is held that the punishment of dismissal from service could not be imposed on the respondent on the ground that no finding was recorded that the misconduct attributed to the respondent amounted to the gravest act of misconduct, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to impose a suitable penalty having regard to the misconduct that has been found proved in the enquiry that was conducted in the departmental proceedings. 5. We find merit in the said submission of the learned counsel. 5. We find merit in the said submission of the learned counsel. Even if the misconduct that has been found established against the respondent is not the gravest act of misconduct so as to call for imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser penalty keeping in view the nature of the misconduct that has been found established. In these circumstances, it must be held that the disciplinary authority is free to impose a suitable penalty having regard to the nature of the misconduct that has been found established in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. 6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the High Court will stand modified accordingly. No orders as to costs.