Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the police service as Grade-II Constable, on 12. 1971. While so, he had gone on casual leave for four days, from 16. 1982 to 16. 1982. As he had fallen ill, the petitioner had visited the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Srirangam, who had recommended for four weeks of medical leave from 16. 1982. After expiry of four weeks of medical leave, the medical officer had recommended three more weeks of medical leave from 17. 1982. In the meantime, the petitioners health had deteriorated and he had become immovable as if he had suffered a paralytic stroke. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to appear, either before the Sub Inspector of Police, Srirangam, or before the medical officer to obtain the necessary extension of leave. In such circumstances, the petitioner was issued a charge memo, on 112. 1982, under Rule 3(B) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charge was with regard to the indisciplined conduct of the petitioner in having absented himself from duty without leave or permission for a continuous period from 8. 1982. Therefore, the petitioner was declared as a deserter from 28. 1982. 2. The petitioner had further stated that after he had received the charge memo, the condition of his health had become very bad and he was unable to move. Therefore, he could not attend the oral enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in his absence and an ex-parte order had been passed by the enquiry officer, without applying his mind. Based on the order of the enquiry officer, the superintendent of police had dismissed the petitioner from service, on 19. 1993, with effect from 28. 1982. The petitioner was not served with a show cause notice before he was dismissed from service. The charge memo issued to the petitioner had been framed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had no jurisdiction to do the same. The petitioner had not received any report or order or any other communication for about six years. Only after the petitioner had made a request to the authorities concerned to furnish the final order and the enquiry report, the fourth respondent had sent the minute and the final order, on 16. 1989, in P.R.213/1982. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy. Only after the petitioner had made a request to the authorities concerned to furnish the final order and the enquiry report, the fourth respondent had sent the minute and the final order, on 16. 1989, in P.R.213/1982. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal in C.No.75/Appeal/89, dated 112. 1989, confirming the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, without considering the peculiar circumstances in which the petitioner had been absent from duty and for not being in a position to attend the enquiry. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition to the Inspector General of Police, the second respondent herein. The review petition had been rejected by the second respondent,on 8. 1990,in Rc.No.83218/AP.1(1)/90, on the ground that the petitioners explanation was not acceptable. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a mercy petition to the Government, the first respondent in the present writ petition. The mercy petition had also been rejected in G.O.(2D) No.8, dated 21. 1992, stating that the charge against the petitioner had been rightly proved. The petitioner had preferred another mercy petition to the Government, on 24. 1992, which was also rejected, on 30.8.1993, stating that there was no case for reconsideration. The order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner only on 111. 1993. The order passed by the Government is a non-speaking order and it has been passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.1762 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.6422 of 2006. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner should have reported for duty, on 8. 1982. However, since he had remained absent, he was struck off as a deserter. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tiruchirappalli. The charge against the petitioner was proved and he was dismissed from service from 8. 1982. The appeal, the review petition and the mercy petition filed by the petitioner had been rejected, on merits and in accordance with law. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tiruchirappalli. The charge against the petitioner was proved and he was dismissed from service from 8. 1982. The appeal, the review petition and the mercy petition filed by the petitioner had been rejected, on merits and in accordance with law. There is no justification in the writ petition to allege that the impugned proceedings of the respondents are invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court the proceedings, dated 111. 2002, stating that similarly placed persons had been considered and reappointed in service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that though the prayer is for a larger relief, it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, in view of the proceedings, dated 111. 2002, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time. 6. The learned Government Advocate has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, enclosing a copy of the proceedings, dated 111. 2002, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note of the proceedings, dated 111. 2002, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.