Judgment :- (Writ Petition came to be filed by transfer of T.A.No.12 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal praying this Court for a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order Na.Ka.2193/98, pa. a dated 18.2.1999 passed by the II respondent and consequently direct the II respondent herein to provide all retirement benefits including pension.) Initially, the petitioner filed W.P.No:6999 of 1999 on the file of this court challenging the impugned order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Villupuram dated 18.2.1999 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The same has been transferred to the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.12 of 2000. Again the same has been transferred to the file of this court and renumbered as W.P.No:32821 of 2005. 2. Originally, the petitioner joined the respondent-Co-operative Society in the year 1965. In the year 1977, he was promoted as Senior Inspector. While he was working as Senior Inspector-I, he fell ill and he was suffering from mental depression and other ailments. Consequently, he could not attend office from 5.4.1989 to 11.4.1993 and after recovery on 12.4.1993 he reported for duty and he was allowed to join duty also. After a lapse of three years, by a charge memo dated 30.4.1996 the allegation of unauthorised absence of and consequential failure in executing the duty was levelled, for which an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer also submitted his report. But the Enquiry Officer has given findings that the charges levelled were proved. Basing on this, the impugned order dated 18.2.1999 imposing the punishment of removal from service has been passed. As against this the petitioner has filed an appeal and as no order has been passed in appeal, challenging the same, he has preferred the Writ Petition as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per the enquiry officer's report which finds a place in the additional typed set of papers, the contention of the petitioner is that he was mentally sick and he was suffering from mental depression and also he was not having any conscious during the relevant point of time. But, in spite of that, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges have been held to be proved. But, in spite of that, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges have been held to be proved. Basing on this, the order of punishment has been passed and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that having conducted an enquiry, the enquiry officer should have given a finding whether the reasons given by the delinquent with regard to the allegations levelled against him are true or not. But, without any discussion to that effect, by merely making an observation that the petitioner has not denied the unauthorised absence and basing on this ground the enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against him are held to be proved which itself shows that the enquiry conducted is an empty formality and not for the purpose for which the enquiry has been conducted, as such, neither the findings of the enquiry officer, nor the impugned order which has been passed basing on the findings of the enquiry officer will stand. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has contended that admittedly the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.12.1989 to 11.4.1993 i.e., for a period of more than 4 years and as such it amounts to a misconduct for which the punishment imposed is a proportionate one, with which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard the submissions of the respective counsels. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was on leave without any leave application from 16.12.1989 to 11.4.1993 and he gave the reason before the Enquiry Officer for his absence during the relevant period. The enquiry officer in his report simply refers the reasons given by the delinquent-petitioner and he did not give any finding whether he is accepting the said reasons or not. But, on the ground, the petitioner had not denied the allegation of unauthorised absence he comes to the conclusion that the charges are held to be proved. If enquiry has been conducted for any of the allegations, it is the duty of the enquiry officer to give reasons for the findings given by him, that is to say, whether he is accepting the reason given by the delinquent or not. Basing on that alone, the findings can be given. If enquiry has been conducted for any of the allegations, it is the duty of the enquiry officer to give reasons for the findings given by him, that is to say, whether he is accepting the reason given by the delinquent or not. Basing on that alone, the findings can be given. But, in this case, referring to the reasons given by the petitioner and only on the sole ground that the petitioner had not denied the allegation of unauthorized absence, the enquiry officer gave the finding that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is proved. That means, the enquiry, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, becomes an empty formality and not for the purpose for which the enquiry was conducted. 7. That apart, as far as the petitioner is concerned he has entered into service of the respondent-department in the year 1965 and he has reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.1999. Prior to 10 days of his superannuation i.e., on 18.2.1999 the impugned order of removal from service has been passed, challenging the same the Writ Petition has been filed, and during the pendency of the Writ Petition he also died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. In the respondent department, he has completed 30 years of service, and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is the only allegation levelled against the petitioner. The process of enquiry is not in conformity with the rules and also a bare reading of the enquiry report shows that the enquiry conducted is an empty formality and without application of mind, the finding has been given. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order of removal from service which has been passed basing on the findings of the enquiry officer cannot stand and accordingly, the impugned order of removal from service dated 18.2.1999 is set aside and the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on with effect from 28.2.1999. But the period of absence i.e., from 16.12.1989 to 11.4.1993 has to be treated as a leave on loss of pay. Basing on this, other terminal benefits to be calculated and the same has to be paid to the heirs of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ Petition is ordered in the above terms. Basing on this, other terminal benefits to be calculated and the same has to be paid to the heirs of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ Petition is ordered in the above terms. There is no order as to costs.