Judgment : INDIRA BANERJEE, J. (1) This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 19th June, 2001, of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application being C.R. No.13010 (W) of 1982, filed by the appellant. (2) The appellant was a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). On 17th May, 1980, when the appellant was posted at the CISF unit at Farakka, a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had wilfully not attended the Commandants Sabha held at 17.00 hours on 16th May, 1980 and had instigated other personnel of the CISF not to attend the same, thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of a member of the CISF. (3) It is not in dispute that the appellant was not present at the Commandants Sabha. The appellants case was that the appellant was not aware of the Sabha and accordingly went to a cinema show. (4) By a letter dated 28th May, 1980, the appellant sought inspection of the report of the preliminary enquiry and the statements of witnesses examined in the preliminary enquiry, as the same were necessary for preparation of the defence of the appellant. According to the appellant, the appellant did not receive any reply to the aforesaid letter. The appellant has stated that the documents referred to, in the letter of 28th May, 1980, being vital for the defence of the appellant, the appellant had also met the respondent No.1, personally, on 29th May, 1980, with a request that he be allowed inspection of the same. The request was turned down. (5) The appellant thus had to submit his reply to the charge-sheet without opportunity to inspect documents vital to his defence. The appellant attended the enquiry. It is alleged that the appellant requested the Enquiry Officer to direct the respondent authorities to supply a copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry and copies of the statements of witnesses at the preliminary enquiry to the appellant, so that the appellant could cross-examine the prosecution witnesses effectively. This was, however, not done. (6) On 5th June, 1980, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding that the charges against the appellant had been proved. This was, however, not done. (6) On 5th June, 1980, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding that the charges against the appellant had been proved. From the enquiry report it appears that about 5 prosecution witnesses were examined, namely, Inspector D.N. Mukherjee, Security Guard D.P. Bhattacharjee, Assistant Sub Inspector Mahabir Singh, Head Security Guard R.N. Bhattacharjee and Head Security Guard P.C. Das. The appellant and one S.C. Soren deposed as defence witnesses. (7) The relevant parts of the enquiry report dealing with the deposition of the prosecution and defence witnesses is extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "1. As Enquiry Officer I examined all the statements of P.W.s and other documentary evidences and consulted the charges. During the enquiry it revealed to me that the commandant, CISF Unit, FBP i.e. Disciplinary Authority has issued order regarding Commandants Sabha under reference letter No.f-42053/Adm/FBP/7980/798 dt. 15.5.80. 2. SG. D.P. Bhattacharjee, P.W. stated in his statement that the delinquent was absent from the Sabha though he personally told the delinquent to attend the Commandants Sabha. He also stated that the delinquent has instigated others not to attend the commandants Sabha. 3. Inspector B.B. Mukherjee, Company Com. B Company P.W. I stated that he has personally the above mentioned commandants Order in Roll Call and asked CHN to inform others who were absent in Roll Call. He also displayed a list of persons who were marked for Sabha Parade. Not only he displayed the others and list in the Notice Board he personally told Company boys to attend Sabha. He also personally instructed the delinquent and others not to interfere the Commandants Sabha affairs and commandants order. he had found the delinquent absent from the Sabha. P.W. I also stated that he had seen the delinquent taking active part in agitation. He told that the delinquent with other members attended meeting near Attac in connection with instigation for not attending commandants Sabha as added by the P.W.1. 4. P.W. 4 HSG R.N. Bhattacharjee stated that he had personally told the delinquent about Comdts Sabha. But the delinquent paid no heed to his appeal. The delinquent was absent from the Comdts Sabha as admitted by the P.W.4. 5. P.W. 3 ASI Mahabir Singh also made same statement against the delinquent and accepted the absence of the delinquent from Comdts Sabha. 6. But the delinquent paid no heed to his appeal. The delinquent was absent from the Comdts Sabha as admitted by the P.W.4. 5. P.W. 3 ASI Mahabir Singh also made same statement against the delinquent and accepted the absence of the delinquent from Comdts Sabha. 6. P.W. 5 HSG P.C. Das also made same statement against the delinquent and accepted the absence of the delinquent from Comdts Sabha. 7. The delinquent has admitted that he was absent from Comdts Sabha. But he stated that he was not present in the Roll Call where Company Commander had announced about the Comdts Sabha. He stated that he had no information about Comdts Sabha. He was absent from the Barrack as he attended cinema show on 15.5.80 night. But no permission was taken by him from any competent authority as accepted by him. (8) The defence witness made no material evidence in defence of the charges. He stated only that the delinquent was absent from the Roll Call on account of Cinema show." 8. The findings of the enquiry officer are set out hereinbelow: "In view of the above statements and other documentary evidence it is clear to me that:- (1) Delinquent No.7118156 SG B. Doloi of B Company CISF Unit, FBP not attended the Commandants Sabha on 16.5.80 at 17 hrs. in the recreation Hall at Khaguriaghat CISF Lines and remained absent from the Sabha without permission or any information or any authority or prior permission or intimation. He was present in the lines but not attended Commandants Sabha that it is proved beyond doubt that he i.e. delinquent deliberately not attended the Sabha. He was fully are of the fact that he was making himself absent from Sabha willfully and intentionally. (9) Therefore the Article of charge No.1 is proved against the delinquent. (10) Statement of P.W.1 Inspector B.N. Mukherjee and statement of P.Ws. have sufficiently proved that the delinquent, SG B. Doloi has instigated others not to attend comdts Sabha. SG.B. Doloi also admitted to PW 1 that he had acted as the leader of the Association and instigated others. From the evidence of the above mentioned P.Ws., it is also proved beyond doubt that the delinquent SG.B. Doloi had instigated others and asked his co-workers not to attend Comdts Sabha. It is concluded that both the charges is proved beyond doubt. From the evidence of the above mentioned P.Ws., it is also proved beyond doubt that the delinquent SG.B. Doloi had instigated others and asked his co-workers not to attend Comdts Sabha. It is concluded that both the charges is proved beyond doubt. The delinquent is guilty of the charges framed against him by the disciplinary authority." (11) It was the specific stand of the appellant that he was not present at the roll call when the Sabha was announced, and therefore, not aware of the Sabha. There is no finding in the enquiry to the effect that the appellant was present at the roll call. The mere fact that the appellant did not attend the Commandants Sabha without permission or intimation, does not in itself prove that the appellant had deliberately stayed away from the Sabha. The enquiry officer, however, held that the allegation of the appellant having deliberately remained absent from the Sabha and the allegation of the appellant having instigated others not to attend the Sabha had both been proved. (12) The enquiry officer arrived at his findings against the appellant, without serious application of mind and without addressing himself to vitally important issues. The finding of the appellant having instigated others not to attend the Sabha is based on totally vague evidence, devoid of any material particulars. As per the enquiry report, all five of the prosecution witnesses had stated that the appellant had been absent from the Sabha, though they had personally told the appellant to attend the Commandants Sabha. Two of the witnesses, namely, Inspector B.B. Mukherjee and Security Guard D.P. Bhattacharjee also stated that the appellant had instigated others not to attend the Sabha. (13) The enquiry officer did not deem it necessary to ascertain why five prosecution witnesses of different ranks had to personally inform the petitioner of the Sabha, which was publicly announced during the roll call and notified in the notice board. Nor did the Enquiry Officer care to find out any particulars of the persons allegedly instigated not to attend the Sabha; not even their names. None of the persons allegedly instigated were examined. In fact the statements of two of the prosecution witnesses have cryptically been dealt with. The report merely states that the said two witnesses made the same statements and accepted the absence of the delinquent from the Commandants Sabha. None of the persons allegedly instigated were examined. In fact the statements of two of the prosecution witnesses have cryptically been dealt with. The report merely states that the said two witnesses made the same statements and accepted the absence of the delinquent from the Commandants Sabha. Having regard to the tenor of the Enquiry Report, it may be inferred that they made the same statement as prosecution witness No.4, R.N. Bhattacharjee. (14) In the Enquiry Report, it is just recorded that D.P. Bhattacharjee, Security Guard stated that the appellant had instigated others not to attend the Sabha. The report does not state whether the statement is based on knowledge or hearsay. The statement has apparently been accepted as sacrosanct, without even ascertaining the basis on which the statement has been made, or the source of the information, if any, of the deponent. (15) The evidence of Inspector B.B. Mukherjee as recorded in the enquiry report, most of which is, in any case, uncorroborated, is devoid of material particulars. The said deponent apparently deposed that: i) he had personally announced the Commandants Sabha; ii) he had personally asked "CHN" to inform others who were absent at the roll call; iii) he had displayed a list of persons who were marked for Sabha parade in the notice board; iv) he had personally told the company boys to attend the Sabha; v) he had personally instructed the delinquent and others not to interfere with the Commandants order; vi) he found the delinquent absent from the Sabha; vii) he had seen the delinquent taking active part in agitation and, viii) the delinquent with others attended the meeting near "Attac" "in connection with instigation for not attending Commandants Sabha". (16) The statements of the witnesses have not been disclosed by the respondents in their pleadings, nor produced in Court inspite of directions. The respondent No.1 has affirmed an affidavit stating that the original records are lost. Even copies of the statements have not been made available. (17) The evidence of B.B. Mukherjee, as recorded in the enquiry report shows that he did not state why it was necessary for him to personally speak to the appellant, even though the Sabha had been announced at the roll call and notified in the notice board. Even copies of the statements have not been made available. (17) The evidence of B.B. Mukherjee, as recorded in the enquiry report shows that he did not state why it was necessary for him to personally speak to the appellant, even though the Sabha had been announced at the roll call and notified in the notice board. The said B.B. Mukherjee has also not given any particulars of the alleged agitation, in which the delinquent had allegedly been seen taking active part. He has also not stated how he got information of the meeting at "Attac". There is not a whisper of the roll of the delinquent in the alleged agitation. The evidence of Inspector B.B. Mukherjee, as recorded in the enquiry report, reveals that he had stated that the "delinquent with others attended the meeting near "Attac" in connection with instigation" It is not his evidence that the appellant had instigated others. (18) Moreover, the finding of the Enquiry Officer of the appellants admission to Inspector B.B. Mukherjee, that he had acted as leader of the Association and instigated others, is not supported by any evidence on record. The evidence given by the said B.B. Mukherjee, has been reproduced in the Enquiry Report. (19) The Commandant being the disciplinary authority mechanically agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without examining the documents on record and without proper application of mind and issued a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. In the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the finding that the appellant had attended the roll call and thus knew of the Sabha athough it was nobodys case that the appellant had attended the roll call. By an order No.V-15018/Asm/FBP/80/2325 dated Farakka the 11th June, 1980 the Commandant, as Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant from service. The relevant portion of the order of the disciplinary authority is extracted hereinbelow: "The delinquent No.7118156 SG.B. Doloi has stated to in his written statement of defence dated 7.6.80 as well as during the course of his personal hearing that he decided not to attend the Sabha as some others did not attend the same but stated further that he did not ask anybody not to attend the Sabha. It has been proved beyond doubt during the enquiry that the delinquent was well informed of the date, time and venue of Sabha. But he did not attend the Sabha in spite of having been duly informed, on his own decision. It has been proved moreover that the delinquent SG.B. Doloi instigated others and asked them not to attend the Sabha. As already discussed in the Provisional Order, if a member of Force refuses to obey the lawful order made by his superior and instigated others to disobey such lawful order, such a member of Force proves himself to be unfit for continuance in the Force. I do not find any reason to revise the Provisional Order. The delinquent No.7118156 SG.B. Doloi is hence dismissed from service, from the date of issue of this order. The period under suspension from 17.5.80 to date not to treated as on duty and the delinquent SG. B. Doloi will not get anything more than that received by him as subsistence allowance for the said period." (20) The finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the appellant had stated that he had decided not to attend the Sabha as some others did not attend the same, is not supported by any materials on record. There was no such finding in the Enquiry. On the other hand, it was all along contended by the appellant that he had no knowledge of the Sabha as he had not attended the roll call. The statement of defence referred to in the order of dismissal has not been disclosed, and it is submitted that the records are all lost. (21) On 30th June, 1980, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. The appeal was disposed of by an Order No.V-11011(37)/SPL/80/AD.II/10884 dated 31st October, 1980 which is extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "This disposes of the appeal petition dated 30.06.80 submitted by No.7118156 SG. B. Doloi against his removal order vide Comdt. FBP Farakka No.V-15018/Adm/FBP/80/2225 dt. 11 June, 1980. I have perused the evidence on record and other relevant papers. The applicant was charged under rule 34 for gross misconduct in that he did not attend the Commandants Sabha willfully on 16.5.80. The enquiry was held as per rule. The applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. His delinquency was proved beyond doubt. He could not bring out any material point in his appeal worth consideration. The applicant was charged under rule 34 for gross misconduct in that he did not attend the Commandants Sabha willfully on 16.5.80. The enquiry was held as per rule. The applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. His delinquency was proved beyond doubt. He could not bring out any material point in his appeal worth consideration. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commandant, FBP Farakka. The appeal is rejected. The applicant may submit his revision petition to IG, CISF if he is not satisfied with this order. A copy of this order may be issued to the applicant free of cost." (22) There is apparently no discussion of the evidence that weighed with the appellate authority in arriving at its conclusion that the delinquency of the appellant had been proved beyond doubt. The points taken in appeal had not even been discussed. The respondent No.5 has affirmed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that due to agitational activities of non-gazetted CISF personnel, the CISF unit had to be withdrawn from the Farakka Barrage Project in June, 1980 and all documents of the unit were shifted to the CISF East Zone Head Quarter at Calcutta. The records probably got lost in transit, during the shifting. It is not understood how the Appellate Authority could have perused the evidence on record and other relevant papers in October, 1980 if the records had got lost at the time of shifting in June, 1980. (23) The aforesaid order in appeal was challenged by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by directing the appellate authority to give the appellant a personal hearing. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Appellate Authority gave the appellant a hearing and thereafter passed a fresh order No.V-11011(37)/81/12481 dated 23rd/26th November, 1981 dismissing the appeal. The Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis of an alleged admission that the appellant had not attended the Sabha since one B.K. Jha had asked him and others not to attend the same. (24) The relevant portions of the order of the Appellant Authority are extracted hereinbelow: "He also admitted that he did not attend the Sabha because one B.K. Jha asked him and others not to attend the same. He stated before me that no body from the CISF unit of Farakka Barrage Project attended the Sabha held on 16.5.80. (24) The relevant portions of the order of the Appellant Authority are extracted hereinbelow: "He also admitted that he did not attend the Sabha because one B.K. Jha asked him and others not to attend the same. He stated before me that no body from the CISF unit of Farakka Barrage Project attended the Sabha held on 16.5.80. He admitted before me that he had cross-examined the PWs. And also that he did not demand or pray before the Enquiring Officer to allow him to produce defence evidence. He claimed that the charge was false and baseless. A perusal of the record it appears that it is not so. .. He asserted that no document/order was produced exhibited to show that the Commandant passed order directing the CISF personnel to attend the Sabha. This assertion is incorrect as letter No.42058/FBP/7980/1978 dated 15.5.80 was issued by the Commandant in this matter and exhibited during the enquiry. (25) He claimed that there is no evidence on record that he had instigated any body to refrain from attending the Sabha. From the record I find there is sufficient evidence on this point. He further claimed that none except the 4 persons, who appeared as prosecution witnesses, did attend the Sabha. This again is contradicted by him when he told before me that no body did attend the Sabha. Moreover, from the record I find (page 19 of the proceeding file) that 62 members of the Force had attended the Sabha on 16.5.80. (26) He has mentioned in his appeal that he was neither allowed to cross-examine the PWs. Nor he was allowed to produce the defence witness by the Enquiring Officer. He admitted before me that he did not make any demand or prayer before the Enquiring Officer to allow him to produce defence witnesses. Moreover, from the record it is seen that he had cross-examined the witnesses and that he had given in writing to the Enquiring Officer that he did not want to produce any defence witness and he did not have any defence witness (vide page 21 of the proceeding file). I have again gone through the evidence on record and find that the charge has been quite convincingly proved. The merit of the appeal has been discussed in detail above. I have again gone through the evidence on record and find that the charge has been quite convincingly proved. The merit of the appeal has been discussed in detail above. I, therefore, reject the appeal and confirm the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority." (27) The main issue in the appeal was, whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had wilfully and deliberately not attended the Sabha or had instigated others not to attend the same. Any discrepancies in the submission of the appellant regarding the number of persons who attended the Sabha is not really material. The finding in appeal that the appellant had informed the Enquiry Officer in writing that he did not want to produce any defence witness and did not have any defence witness, is contrary to the Enquiry Report, which inter alia records as follows: "The defence witness made no material evidence in defence of the charges. He stated only that the delinquent was absent from the Roll Call on account of Cinema show." (28) The conclusion that the Appellate Authority, in effect, drew, of the appellant not exercising his right to examine any witness, by giving a statement that he had no defence witness, cannot be reconciled with the Enquiry Report, which curiously deals with the evidence of defence witness, and is patently absurd, imaginary and perverse. Some of the factual findings in the appeal, being patently contrary to the materials on record, including in particular the enquiry report, it is doubtful whether reliance can be placed on the other factual findings in appeal including the finding of admission of the appellant of being instigated by one B.K. Jha, not to attend the Sabha. (29) The Appellate Authority was apparently biased against the appellant from the inception and did not seriously consider all the issues raised by the appellant in appeal. For example, the contention of the appellant, that there was no cogent evidence to prove that he had instigated others not to attend the Sabha was cursorily rejected by the Appellate Authority, by a single sentence, to the effect that the Appellate Authority had gone through the evidence and found that the charge had quite convincingly been proved. (30) The evidence was not at all discussed. (30) The evidence was not at all discussed. In any case, it is doubtful whether the Appellate Authority actually went through the evidence, since there is now a clear admission that the records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings were lost before the appeal was considered, or disposed of. (31) Challenging the order dated 23rd/26th November, 1981 of the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal, the appellant filed the writ application being C.O. 14010 (W) of 1992, which has been dismissed by the order of the learned Single Judge, impugned in this appeal. The submission of Mr. Verma, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the charges levelled against the appellant do not constitute any misconduct, is difficult to sustain. (32) Deliberate refusal of a member of a disciplined force, to obey any lawful order issued by the Commandant, certainly constitutes misconduct. Instigating other members of the force, not to obey lawful orders constitutes serious misconduct. The question is whether the appellant was give reasonable opportunity of defence and, if so, whether there was acceptable evidence to sustain the charges levelled against the appellant. (33) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate, that the evidence, if any, on the basis of which the charges had been held established, were not disclosed. Furthermore, attention of the learned Single Judge was apparently not drawn to the discrepancies between the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. (34) The respondent chose not to file any affidavit in opposition to the writ application. The factual averments in the writ petition, of non-supply of the report of the preliminary enquiry and statements of the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry, were not controverted. In any case, as observed above, the respondent No.1 has affirmed an affidavit in this appeal on 5th February, 2008. In the said affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court, a Board was constituted to investigate into the circumstances in which the original disciplinary, enquiry files pertaining to the appellant went missing. (35) Upon enquiry, it was found that due to agitation, the CISF unit at Farakka was withdrawn in June, 1980 and all records had to be shifted to the Eastern Headquarters of CISF at Calcutta. The records were transferred back after completion of the reinduction process in February, 1981. (35) Upon enquiry, it was found that due to agitation, the CISF unit at Farakka was withdrawn in June, 1980 and all records had to be shifted to the Eastern Headquarters of CISF at Calcutta. The records were transferred back after completion of the reinduction process in February, 1981. The Board concluded that there was a strong possibility that the original files pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings of the appellant went missing, in transit, at the time of shifting of records. (36) If the original files went missing in June, 1980 or even in February, 1981, the Appellate Authority could not possibly have looked into the statements of witnesses and other relevant materials on record, at the time of consideration and final disposal of the appeal in November, 1981. The appeal of the appellant was apparently not considered in accordance with law and/or in accordance with the applicable service rules. There has been flagrant violation of natural justice. The provision of appeal has been reduced to a farcical exercise. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the scope of interference of the writ Court with findings of fact arrived at in domestic disciplinary proceedings is limited. The writ Court exercising its power of judicial review does not sit in appeal over such findings. It is only when the decision making process is vitiated, by violation of natural justice or patent illegalities, that the writ Court interferes. (37) In this case, the decision making process is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant has been denied the opportunity of an effective appeal, since original records and documents are missing. Moreover, the statements of witnesses at the preliminary enquiry were never supplied to the appellant. The appellant has thus been denied the opportunity of effective cross-examination. (38) Neither the Disciplinary Authority, nor the Appellate Authority have addressed to themselves the issue of whether the appellant could properly and effectively have cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, without looking into their statements at the stage of preliminary investigation/enquiry. Moreover, as noted above, some of the findings in appeal were patently contrary to the enquiry report. This also demonstrates that the Appellate Authority did not examine the requisite records. (39) It is true that strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to domestic proceedings. Moreover, as noted above, some of the findings in appeal were patently contrary to the enquiry report. This also demonstrates that the Appellate Authority did not examine the requisite records. (39) It is true that strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to domestic proceedings. At the same time, the domestic fact finding body is required to scrutinize and consider the evidence on record. Decisions affecting the livelihoods and/or the future careers of citizens cannot be taken in a casual slipshod manner. The evidence is not only required to be analyzed and assessed by the Enquiry Officer, but also by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. (40) In the context of Mr. Vermas argument, of the punishment of the appellant being disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, the learned Single Judge observed that omission to attend the Sabha, would perhaps not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, had not a second charge of instigating others not to attend the Sabha also been established. The evidence on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer has held the second charge proved, is tenuous. Single sentences of only two prosecution witnesses, devoid of any particulars, including the basis of the statements, have in effect led to the dismissal of the appellant from service. (41) The finding of the appellant instigating others not to attend the Sabha borders on perversity. No body of persons acting reasonably, with a fair, open mind could have held the second charge established, on the basis of the evidence as recorded in the Enquiry Report. Yet the appellant virtually had no opportunity of appeal, since the statements of witnesses and other original records were obviously not before the Appellate Authority, when the Appellate Authority decided the appeal in November, 1981. (42) We are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge, that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice, after giving the appellant a hearing, and upon consideration of evidence. There was apparently only a semblance of compliance of natural justice and a specious assertion of consideration of evidence, which does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The disciplinary action against the appellant cannot in our view be sustained. It is, however, now well-settled that grant of full wages is not automatic. There was apparently only a semblance of compliance of natural justice and a specious assertion of consideration of evidence, which does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The disciplinary action against the appellant cannot in our view be sustained. It is, however, now well-settled that grant of full wages is not automatic. In granting relief, we cannot overlook the fact that staying away from a Sabha and thereby violating an order lawfully issued, constitutes misconduct. Furthermore, the appellant has not actually rendered any service for 29 years. (43) The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellate order dated 23rd/26th November, 1981 and the order of dismissal dated 11th June, 1980 are also set aside. (44) The respondents shall reinstate the appellant in service, with 30% of back wages from the date of his dismissal. In the event the appellant has attained the age of retirement, in the meanwhile, the appellant shall be deemed to have been in continuous service till the date he attained the age of retirement and shall be paid 30% back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date on which he attained the age of retirement. The appellant shall, further, be entitled to full retiral benefits.