Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner in this application seeks to challenge the orders dismissing him from service for certain misconduct including long unauthorised absence from duty. 2. On 15-1-1961 the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of 17, Bihar Battalion N. C. C. Saharsa. Being surplus staff in that department his services were transferred to the Directorate, adult Education, Bihar and he was posted in the office of the Project Officer, Harsidhi block, East Champaran vide order contained in the letter dated 26-2-1979 issued by the Director, Adult Education. The petitioner was relieved from the n. C. C. Office on March 16, 1979 and thereafter he joined in the office of the project Officer, Harsidhi Block, East champaran. Shortly after having joined there he went away without any sanctioned leave on 12-5-1979 and appears to have remained absent till the issuance of the charge sheet dated May 28, 1983 (Copy at Annexure-1 ). A departmental enquiry was held into the charges at the conclusion of which he was given a second show cause and after considering his reply to it he was dismissed from service by order dated september 30, 1983 (Annexure-5)passed by the Director, Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. He preferred an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Education Commissioner, Bihar, Patna by order dated april 4,1985 (Annexure-7 ). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the writ petition, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned orders were passed quite properly. However, the long pendency of this case before this court has given rise to a situation which warrants a further consideration of the petitioners case. It may be noted that this application was admitted for hearing in this court on 4-10-1985 when by an interim order the operation of the impugned orders contained in Annexures 5 and 7 was stayed. As a consequence the petitioner would be deemed to continue in service. 4. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner definitely asserts that following the stay order passed by this court the petitioner continues to be in service and is working as a Clerk in the Adult Education department. As a consequence the petitioner would be deemed to continue in service. 4. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner definitely asserts that following the stay order passed by this court the petitioner continues to be in service and is working as a Clerk in the Adult Education department. Now that this case has been taken up for hearing almost 12 years have gone by from the date of the appellate order was passed in the petitioners case and during this long period he has continued in service. This circumstance to my mind introduces a new factor to be taken into consideration. It is not known what has been the conduct of the petitioner during the past 12 years and whether he has conducted himself in the departmental work properly and efficiently. I, however, feel that before giving effect to the order of dismissal passed 12 years ago the disciplinary authority, namely, the Director, Adult Education would perhaps like to review the punishment order in the light of the petitioners conduct during the past 12 years. He may wish to consider whether having regard to the petitioners conduct during the past 12 years, it would be more proper and just to substitute the order of dismissal by a lesser punishment. In case, however, the Director, adult Education finds that a lesser punishment would not serve the ends of justice, he would consider the desirability of substituting the punishment of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal from service. With the above observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. Order Accordingly.