Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent, in P.R.41/2000, dated 37. 2000, as confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings C.No.D2/Ap-133/DIG-TAN/2000, dated 112. 2000, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential, monetary and service benefits. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the police service as a Grade-II Police Constable, on 23. 1981. He was promoted as a Grade-I Police Constable in the year, 1997. The petitioner has received 10 rewards for his efficient and meritorious service. While so, he was served with a charge memo, in P.R.41/2000, dated 13. 2000, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, issued by the second respondent, stating that on 27. 1999, when the roll call was taken, at 09.30 hours, it was observed that the petitioner had absented himself from duty for more than 21 days, without availing any leave and without prior permission. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though a decision to conduct an oral enquiry should have been taken after the receipt of the explanation from the charged Government servant, as per Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, the disciplinary authority had decided to conduct an oral enquiry without following the said procedure. The petitioner had reported before the disciplinary authority, on 9. 1999, and he had explained the circumstances in which he had absented himself from duty. After being satisfied by the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had passed an order, in his proceedings D.O.1439/99, Na.Ka.No.N2/2056/99, dated 9. 1999, taking the petitioner back in service to perform his duties. .5. It has been further stated that an oral enquiry had been conducted, based on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted that he was unable to report for duty during the relevant period due to his ill-health and due to certain family problems. However, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry officer had concluded the enquiry stating that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. On 37. The petitioner had submitted that he was unable to report for duty during the relevant period due to his ill-health and due to certain family problems. However, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry officer had concluded the enquiry stating that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. On 37. 2000, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, awarding the major punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the petitioner, contrary to the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, in his proceedings R.C.No.243881/AP.I(1)/90, dated 30.10.1990. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent, on 11. 2000, had been rejected in his proceedings, dated 112. 2000, impugned in the present writ petition. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the petitioner had been on leave, unauthorisedly, he had been taken back in service to perform his duties. Thereafter, he was compulsorily retired from service by the impugned proceedings of the respondents, without adhering to the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police in his proceedings, dated 30.10.1990. According to which, the punishment of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement should not be imposed if a deserter had been permitted to join duty. He was taken back in service to perform his duties after he was found to have deserted his service. Therefore, it would be contrary to the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, dated 30.10.1990, to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. .7. The learned counsel had also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, by an order, dated 24. 2009, made in W.P.No.38563 of 2006, had passed orders as follows: ."8. In the light of the above circular issued by the Director General of Police which is binding on the respondents while passing the orders on the disciplinary proceedings, the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent to apply the circular issued by the Director General of Police, dated 30.10.1990 and pass fresh orders i.e., for imposing any other punishment other than removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the order, dated 24. 2009, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.38563 of 2006, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 37. 2000, and of the first respondent, dated 112. 2000, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to consider the matter, afresh, in view of the guidelines issued in the Circular of the Director General of Police, in Proceedings R.C.No.243881/AP.I(1)/90, dated 30.10.1990, if it is found to be applicable to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.