Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. Re: Misc. Applications with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up on board for final hearing. Re: Petition 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated Jun 28, 1994 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Senior superintendent of Police, Faridkot whereby he has been dismissed from service as well as the order dated July 3, 1995 (Annexure P-7), dismissing the petitioners appeal against the above mentioned order of dismissal. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as a Constable with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Punjab Police on march 16, 1971. A complaint was made by his wife that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life with a lady (Gurjeet Kaur) and he had abandoned his complainant-wife along with her children. The petitioner was chargesheeted on March 1, 1993 (Annexure P-1) to which the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P-2 ). An inquiry was held and charges were proved vide report dated April 2, 1993 (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioner thereafter was dismissed from service vide the impugned order (Annexure P-6 ). The inquiry proceedings were concluded strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner went in appeal before the appellate authority but his appeal was also turned down vide order Annexure P-7. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. The only meaningful contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while dismissing him from service, the disciplinary authority did not keep in view the fact that he had allegedly rendered unblemished service of over 23 years at the time of his dismissal from service. Learned counsel contends that the punishment of dismissal could have been awarded only in the case of gravest misconduct and the petitioner could have been suitably punished by imposing a lesser punishment including his premature retirement from service. Reliance has been placed by him on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C. W. P. No.10557 of 1996 (Constable Baljinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab), annexure A-2. Reliance has been placed by him on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C. W. P. No.10557 of 1996 (Constable Baljinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab), annexure A-2. Reliance has also been placed by him upon another division Bench judgment dated February 2, 1999 passed in C. W. P. No.3999 of 1998 (Ranbir Singh V/s. State of Punjab), Annexure A-1. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sewak, Learned State Counsel, vehemently contends that since the petitioner has been found to be leading an adulterous life despite being a member of the disciplined force and he, in a way, is also guilty of causing harassment to his wife and four minor children, therefore, no leniency in the matter of quantum of punishment is warranted. 6. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, having regard to the length of service rendered by the petitioner before dismissal from service, and keeping in view the principles and parameters laid down by this court in the judgments (supra), this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i)the disciplinary authority, namely, respondent No.3 SSP, faridkot shall objectively reconsider the petitioners case on quantum of punishment in the light of the two judgments passed by this Court, referred to above; (ii) if the disciplinary authority, having regard to the mandate in the aforementioned judgments, is of the view that the ends of justice can be sufficiently met by imposing a lesser punishment upon the petitioner, he shall substitute the order of punishment (Annexure P-6) with another order of punishment which shall operate prospectively; (iii) however, in such an eventuality, no arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioner though the notional benefit, if any, for the purpose of monetary benefits shall accrue to him; (iv) for the limited purpose of reconsideration of the petitioners case on the quantum of punishment, the orders Annexures P-6 and P-7 shall be kept in abeyance till the same are substituted by fresh order (s); (v) if the petitioner is still aggrieved of the action taken by the authorities, he shall be at liberty to seek redressal thereof in accordance with law; (vi) the exercise in terms of directions given above, shall be carried out within a period of four months from today. Disposed of.