ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 3. The State of Tripura has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Assam, Agartala Bench. The respondent was a police constable working in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Agartala. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for his unauthorised absence. On previous occasions also, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and he was found guilty and certain punishments were imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. The respondent was removed from service. He filed a civil suit to set aside the order passed against him. The suit was dismissed. The respondent filed an appeal and that was also dismissed. Ultimately, the matter came up by way of second appeal. The learned Single Judge held that the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent appeared to be excessive and disproportionate to the proved misconduct and as such the impugned punishment of removal from service was quashed. The case was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to impose any punishment except punishment of dismissal/removal from service and/or compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge also directed the appellant to pay 25% of back wages to the respondent. 4. The counsel for the appellant contended that previously, for various types of dereliction of duties, the respondent was awarded punishment nineteen times and was ultimately dismissed from service and therefore punishment was not excessive. The learned Single Judge considered all these aspects and having regard to the fact that it was only a question of absence from duty, took a lenient view. The counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has only two years of service left. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even though there is some force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that the respondent was not efficiently discharging his duties. The payment of back wages to such an officer is not in the fitness of things. Therefore, the direction to pay back wages is set aside. The appellant shall reinstate the respondent within a month from today. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.