ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. The respondent was dismissed from service by the appellants in terms of the order dated 16-12-1996, made in exercise of power under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 (for short "the Rules"). The said order has been set aside by the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court which was affirmed in letters patent appeal by the impugned judgment. 2. The case of the appellants is that in February 1989, the respondent while filling the enrolment form as combatant, in answer to Question 13, falsely stated that no case was pending against him. Our attention has been drawn to the declaration made in the said form that in the event of the statement being found to be incorrect, it could result in dismissal from the Indian Air Force. According to the appellants, they came to know about the false declaration on 22-3-1994 on receipt of the communication of the said date from the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and, on consideration of his reply, the order dated 16-12-1996 was made. 3. Section 44 of the Act postulates that if any person who wilfully gives a false answer, on conviction by court martial, is liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or such less punishment as mentioned in the Act. The period of limitation for court martial is prescribed in Section 121 of the Act to be three years from the date of the offence. 4. The contention urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General is that the appellants learnt about the false declaration made by the respondent much beyond the expiry of the period of three years; the false declaration was made by the respondent in February 1989; the appellants learnt about it on 22-3-1994 and, therefore, it was not possible to try the respondent in a court martial in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 121 of the Act. It is contended that under the circumstances, the power of dismissal, as contained in Section 20(3) of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules, being independent power, was rightly exercised and the High Court committed serious illegality in quashing the order of dismissal dated 16-12-1996. It is contended that under the circumstances, the power of dismissal, as contained in Section 20(3) of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules, being independent power, was rightly exercised and the High Court committed serious illegality in quashing the order of dismissal dated 16-12-1996. 5. In the impugned judgment, a finding of fact has been recorded that the appellants became aware about the pendency of the criminal cases against the respondent as far back in the year 1991. The said finding of fact has not even been properly assailed in the appeal except relying upon the letter dated 22-3-1994. The High Court has further held that there is no denial to the specific averment made by the respondent in his writ petition that the appellants acquired knowledge of the criminal cases against him through routine verification in the year 1991. In the writ petition, a specific averment has been made by the respondent that the Government came to know about these cases when the employee was in training centre through the routine verification conducted at the time of recruitment, he was asked to explain the whole incident and that, thereafter, the matter was not pursued. 6. Our attention has also been drawn to the recommendations made by the Station Commander and the Officiating Commander which, inter alia, stated that the respondent is a hard-working and trouble-free airman who has contributed to the unit's operation in the last four years. He has been found to be a simple and sincere man with no criminal tendencies. Both the officers strongly recommended the case of the respondent having regard to the flawless record of service in the Air Force. Be that as it may, the main case of the appellants for exercise of power under Section 20(3) of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules was based on the assumption that court martial could not be held against the respondent, they having learnt about the criminal cases in the year 1994. The said assumption loses force in view of the finding that the Government learnt about the criminal cases against the respondent in the year 1991. We may in passing note that the respondent was discharged in those cases. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The said assumption loses force in view of the finding that the Government learnt about the criminal cases against the respondent in the year 1991. We may in passing note that the respondent was discharged in those cases. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the payment of back wages is restricted to fifty per cent. Appeal dismissed.