ORDER 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The respondent who was serving as a constable in the Police Department of the appellant State was subjected to a departmental inquiry on the ground of his unauthorised absence. According to the appellant, the respondent did not participate in the said inquiry and after the completion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority based on the finding of the inquiry report, dismissed the respondent from service. He, however, directed the Department to treat the unauthorised leave of the respondent as "leave without pay". 4. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondent filed a suit before the Sub-Judge, First Class, Amritsar challenging the said order of dismissal. The trial court basing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Channan Singhl held that there was non-compliance with Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, hence, the punishment imposed on the respondent was vitiated, accordingly he decreed the suit. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by the a appellant State also came to be dismissed on the very same ground. The appellate court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh2. 5. The second appeal filed by the State Government before the High Court also came to be dismissed. The High Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bakshish Singh2. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Bakshish Singh2 has since been explained by the two subsequent judgments of this Court in the case of Maan Singh v. Union of India3 as also State of Punjab v. Charanjit Singh4 7. Having considered the abovestated judgments, we are of the opinion that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contended, assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment of Bakshish Singh2 did not apply to the facts of the case, even then the finding of the trial court and the first appellate court is also based on violation of Rule 16.2, the High Court ought to have considered the non-compliance with the said rule which the High Court has failed to do. 9. 9. It is true that the High Court did not discuss this aspect of the matter while dismissing the said appeal. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the judgment of the High Court should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the High Court with a direction that the High Court should frameappropriate questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC and consider the arguments of the State whether the judgment of this Court in Bakshish Singh2 would still apply in spite of the subsequent judgment of this Court in Maan Singh3 as well as Channan Singh1. The Court will also consider whether there was any non-compliance with Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules and if so, what is the effect thereof before finally deciding the appeal f before it. 10. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter stands remanded back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. 11. The appeal is allowed.