The case of the writ petitioner is that he was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector and posted with the 26th Battalion SAF, Guna. A complaint was made by one Smt. Sunita Sharma to the Commandant to the effect that she was a divorcee and the petitioner after marrying her at a temple had established physical relationship with her. The same lasted for almost 8 years. The petitioner was not discharging his obligations towards her. Based on the complaint was found to be false. A similar complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police. The report submitted on 05.11.2019, held the petitioner guilty of sending obscene messages to the complainant, chatting with her on mobile, establishing illicit relationship with her etc. On the basis of the said report, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated. He was found guilty of the charges except establishing intimate relations. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of the enquiring officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges. The penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed wherein the penalty of removal from service was modified to that of compulsory retirement. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed. It was contended by the petitioner that the charge framed against him does not fall under the definition of 'misconduct'. Reliance was placed on Rule 64(3) of the M.P. Police Regulations to the said extent. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the conduct of the petitioner outside his normal course of duty cannot be considered to be as misconduct. Therefore, the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner without any backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the State have filed this appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The learned Single Judge misguide himself in adopting a technical view while considering the case of the petitioner based on the definition o