JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.01.1988 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby decreeing his suit and granting him declaration that order dated 05.01.1984 by which the respondent was dismissed from service was illegal. 2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1975. In the year 1983 he was found absent from his place of duty. Subsequently, he was suspended because his name figured in an FIR under Sections 262, 83, 392 and 394 IPC. Thereafter, charge-sheet was issued and after conducting regular enquiry he was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal in a civil suit which was dismissed. In an appeal, the learned lower Appellate Court had held that after the enquiry show-cause notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service but under the provision of Rule 16.24 (ix) of the Punjab Police Rules a duty was cast upon the appellants to produce the respondent before the Superintendent of Police where he would be asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. The learned lower Appellate Court on fact found that the respondent was never produced before the punishing authority. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Siri Ram v. The State of Punjab reported in 1987 SLR 678 the learned lower Appellate Court held that this mandatory provision not having been followed the order of dismissal was set aside. 3. When this appeal was filed no question of law was proposed by learned counsel for the appellants. Today learned counsel for the appellants has proposed the following question of law: Whether Rule 16.24(ix) of the Punjab Police Rules is mandatory? 4. In my opinion, in view of the judgment cited above the rule has to be held to be mandatory. Consequently, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court. 5. The question which then crops up is as to what relief can be granted by this Court. It is not disputed that when this appeal was filed and came up for hearing in 1988 it was admitted and the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court was stayed. 24 years have elapsed since then. 5. The question which then crops up is as to what relief can be granted by this Court. It is not disputed that when this appeal was filed and came up for hearing in 1988 it was admitted and the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court was stayed. 24 years have elapsed since then. The respondent has been out of job for the last 29 years. In the normal course the punishment order would be set aside and a direction be issued to the punishing authority to decide the matter afresh. In this case that order is not at all feasible even if the punishing authority now decides to set aside the order of dismissal no practicable relief would be granted to the respondent since he has already attained the age of superannuation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has suggested a fair way out. He states that on the date of dismissal the respondent had eight years of service. He has further stated that now the respondent would not seek either salary or emoluments or allowances or promotion but it be declared that he would have continued and retired on the post of Police Constable and consequently grant retiral benefits from the date when he attained the age of superannuation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to pass this order. Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. ------------