Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Even though the matter has been listed for orders, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondent has again prayed time for filing counter. I do not see any justification to grant time for filing counter at this belated stage, as the writ petition is pending since five years. The Policy of the Legislature as reflected in the amended C.P.C regarding the grant of time for filing written statement, even though not strictly applicable to a writ petition, is also required to be kept in view. Therefore, I do not find any justification to grant any further time to the State Government for filing counter. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order of termination. It is not disputed that the petitioner was transferred from Tirunelveli Corporation and posted as Medical Officer under the first respondent/Corporation in the year 1989. Subsequently, the first respondent commenced disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent. Explanation was furnished by the petitioner stating that on account of the sudden demise of his father, the petitioner had to remain absent and therefore, due to depression the petitioner himself had to undergo treatment. It was further explained that applications had been filed from time to time for grant of leave. It was also indicated that the petitioner was willing to rejoin. However, the first respondent proceeded with the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and thereafter passed an order of termination. 4.The petitioner filed appeal before the State Government. The State Government while allowing the appeal on the ground that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass an order of termination, passed a separate order of termination on the very same ground of unauthorised absence. This order is being challenged by the petitioner. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Justifying the action, however no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second and third respondent. 6. This order is being challenged by the petitioner. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Justifying the action, however no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second and third respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the power to impose a major punishment such as reduction to a lower rank, compulsory retirement from the service, removal from the service and dismissal from the service as envisaged under Rule 3, Sub-Rules (3), (7), (8) and (9) respectively is not vested with the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, but, the Government is the authority. This is evident from Rule-4 which is to the following effect: 4.Disciplinary authority:- (1) The authority competent to impose the penalties specified in clauses (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and (1) of rule 3, on the members holding Class I and Class II posts shall be the Commissioner. (2) The authority competent to impose the penalties specified in Clauses (3),(7) to (9) of rules 3 on the members holding Class I and Class II posts shall be the Government. (3) The authority competent to impose any of the penalties mentioned in rule 3 on the members holding Class III and Class IV posts shall be the Commissioner. Therefore, the initial order of termination passed by the Corporation was obviously void. 7. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority against he order of the Commissioner. Since the order was passed by the Commissioner was void from the inception, possibly there was no requirement for filing any appeal. Be that as it may, the petitioner had invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the State Government and the State Government had rightly allowed the appeal by holding that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to impose penalty. After having held so, the State Government proceeded to pass an order directing the removal of the petitioner from service. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while imposing this punishment of removal from service, the relevant Rules as contemplated under Rule 8 have not been kept in view. After having held so, the State Government proceeded to pass an order directing the removal of the petitioner from service. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while imposing this punishment of removal from service, the relevant Rules as contemplated under Rule 8 have not been kept in view. Rule 8, Sub Rule 12 relevant for the purpose is extracted hereunder: 8.Procedure for imposing penalties:- (12) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a member of the service is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decide to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, such member of a service shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of original order of dismissal, removal of compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. 9. In the present case, it has been asserted that no further enquiry has been held by the Government and the Government had proceeded to impose penalty straight away. This assertion has not been denied. In fact, a perusal of the order indicates that soon after allowing the appeal of the petitioner, the impugned order of termination has been passed by the Government without conducting any further enquiry and without even calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed order of termination. Since the principles of natural justice have not been followed and the provision containing Rule 8(12) has not been complied with, the order of termination must be held to be invalid. 10. The next question is as to whether the Government should be permitted to hold a fresh enquiry and what should be the nature of relief. It has been stated by the petitioner that due to sudden demise of his father, he had to remain absent and thereafter due to depression, the petitioner had to undergo treatment. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner had given some applications seeking leave. The petitioner is a qualified Doctor. The order of termination of the appellate authority/State Government has been passed in the year 1997. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner had given some applications seeking leave. The petitioner is a qualified Doctor. The order of termination of the appellate authority/State Government has been passed in the year 1997. The petitioner had undergone prolonged mental agony right from the year 1993 and has been pursuing legal remedy. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has already undergone sufficient harassment and mental agony. Having regard to all these aspects, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the date of termination and such period should be counted towards his seniority and other benefits such as pension and increment etc., However, no amount shall be paid to the petitioner for the period from the date of termination till the date of rejoining of the petitioner pursuant to the present order. It is also made clear that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances already noticed, it is no longer necessary for the second and third respondents to reopen the matter and the matter should be treated as closed. 11. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.