ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 8-12-1982 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 27-4-1982 regarding dismissal of the respondent from service as well as the order dated 1 -8-1982 passed by the appellate authority have been set aside. 2. The respondent was employed as Writer Constable in Police a Department of the Government of Tripura. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of the memorandum dated 11-5-1981 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tripura, Agartala. It was accompanied by a charge-sheet containing two charges. An inquiry was conducted into the charges by the Additional Superintendent of Police. In his inquiry report dated 2-4-1982, the Inquiry Officer found both the charges proved. On the basis of the said report of the Inquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Tripura, Agartala, passed the order dated 27-4-1982, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of dismissal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (HQ), Tripura, by order dated 11-8- 1982. 3. The High Court has set aside the order of dismissal as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were governed by the disciplinary regulations for police officers of subordinate rank in Tripura Police made in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, vide notification dated 17-2-1968, whereunder the Superintendent of Police did not have the power to punish the respondent. The High Court has found that such powers were conferred on the Superintendent of Police only by notification dated 10-3-1982 and since the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were initiated prior to 10-3-1982, and the notification dated 10-3-1982 did not have retrospective effect, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 27-4-1982 was invalid. 4. We have perused the notification dated 17-2-1968. By paragraph 5 of the said notification the existing Regulation 861 was substituted. In clause (o) of the substituted Regulation 861 it was provided as under : "Proceedings in cases of serious misconduct against officers of and below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, shall be drawn up by the Superintendent. 4. We have perused the notification dated 17-2-1968. By paragraph 5 of the said notification the existing Regulation 861 was substituted. In clause (o) of the substituted Regulation 861 it was provided as under : "Proceedings in cases of serious misconduct against officers of and below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, shall be drawn up by the Superintendent. In other cases, proceedings may be drawn up and evidence recorded by an officer not below the rank of Inspector (excluding Armed Inspectors) who will then submit the record to the Superintendent for perusal, examination and issue of orders." 5. The notification dated 10-3-1982, whereby the notification dated 17-2-1968 was superseded and, as a result the Superintendent of Police was conferred disciplinary powers over Constables contains the following provisions : "3. The Governor is further pleased to direct that all proceedings, appeals and review pending at the commencement of this notification shall be dealt with as if such proceedings, appeals and reviews were the proceedings, appeals and reviews under the regulations adopted by this notification." 6. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in clause (o) of Regulation 861, as substituted by notification dated 17-2-1968, the a Superintendent of Police was competent to initiate proceedings against the respondent and, therefore, the charge-sheet that was issued by the Superintendent of Police on 11-5-1981 was in accordance with the powers that were conferred on the Superintendent of Police under notification dated 17-2-1968. Since the proceedings were properly initiated by the Superintendent of Police, the said proceedings should be treated as proceedings pending on the date of issue of notification dated 10-3-1982 and by virtue of clause 3 of the said notification the said proceedings had to be dealt with as if such proceedings were the proceedings under the regulations adopted by the notification dated 10-3-1982. Since the Superintendent of Police had been conferred disciplinary powers in respect of Constables under the notification dated 10-3-1982, he was competent to pass the order dated 27-4-1982 imposing the punishment of dismissal on the respondent on 27-4-1982. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the High Court taking the view that the Superintendent of Police was not competent to punish the respondent. The said order of dismissal must, therefore, be upheld and, for the same reason, the order dated 11-8-1982 passed by the appellate authority must also be upheld. 7. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the High Court taking the view that the Superintendent of Police was not competent to punish the respondent. The said order of dismissal must, therefore, be upheld and, for the same reason, the order dated 11-8-1982 passed by the appellate authority must also be upheld. 7. We have, however, considered the charges that have been found established against the respondent. Having regard to the fact that the respondent had already put in nearly 33 years of service on the date when the order of dismissal was passed, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which instead of dismissal from service the penalty of compulsory retirement may be imposed on the respondent with the direction that the respondent would not be entitled to payment of any arrears of pension from the date of the passing of the order of dismissal, i.e., from 27-4-1982 till the date of this judgment and would be entitled to receive the pension with effect from 1-1-1996 only. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 27-4-1982 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Tripura, Agartala, and the order dated 11-8-1982 passed by the Deputy In spector General of Police (HQ), Tripura, taking disciplinary action against the respondent are upheld with the modification that instead of the penalty of dismissal from service the penalty of compulsory retirement from service is imposed on the respondent and that the respondent will not be entitled to payment of any arrears of pension payable to him on account of such compulsory retirement from service for the period from 27-4-1982 till the date of this judgment but he will be entitled to receive the pension and other retiral benefits with effect from 1 - I - 1996. The appellants will take steps to compute the pension payable to the respondent within three months. No costs.