As per case facts, the Petitioner, a CRPF Constable, on paternity leave, fell from a tree sustaining spinal and head injuries, leading to overstaying his leave. His dismissal from service ... for unauthorized absence and subsequent appeals were rejected. The Petitioner argued that dismissal for a less heinous offense (unauthorized absence not on active duty) under Section 10(m) read with Section 11 was not permissible, citing a previous judgment. He also contended that the authorities dismissed his medical evidence without objective assessment, inferring premeditated absence. The question arose whether a major punishment like dismissal could be imposed for a less heinous offense when not on active duty, and if the respondent-authorities properly assessed the evidence. Finally, the High Court found the Petitioner's absence during paternity leave did not constitute a "more heinous offence" under Section 9(f) (desertion while on active duty), making it only a "less heinous offence." It also ruled that the authorities' reasoning for discrediting medical certificates was not objective or based on independent application of mind. The petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for a fresh order, emphasizing fair procedure.