Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, D.M.Govindarajan, seeking for a prayer to call for the records of the 1st respondent, passed in No.Na.Ka.No.90221/98/X2, dated 06.07.99 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner, while serving as a Noon Meal Organiser at Kudavaadi Union Primary School, the Sub-Collector, Hosur carried out the inspection in the petitioners Noon Meal Centre on 10.04.90 and having found certain shortage in the stocks, the petitioner was placed under suspension by issuing memo dated 30.06.1990. The charge memo also referred the total value of the shortage in the stock on 30.06.90 at Rs.47/-. Therefore, he was directed to deposit double the amount to the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner also remitted the said amount of Rs.94/-and also sent his explanation simultaneously. The 2nd respondent, after satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, issued a communication letter No.Na.Ka.3870/90/A4, dated 08.05.91, recommending to the 1st respondent for revocation of the suspension order in order to enable the petitioner to rejoin the duty. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent also sent a reminder to the 1st respondent in his letter No.Na.Ka.1310/92(A4), dated 28.10.92, but there was no response from the 1st respondent to the recommendation letter dated 08.05.91. Thereafter, the petitioner, having waited for a long time, made a number of representations dated 06.02.96, 12.06.96, 10.02.97 and finally on 24.08.97. Since the representations of the petitioner was not answered by the respondents, the petitioner finally, filed O.A.No.7342 of 1998 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to pass suitable orders on his representation dated 24.08.97. The Tribunal, after entertaining the application, directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.97 regarding his reinstatement and pass orders as per rules within a period of eight weeks. In pursuant to the above said direction issued by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent has passed an order dated 06.07.99, rejecting the request of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service. The said order is now under challenge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was placed under suspension, in view of the charge memo dated 30.06.90 as mentioned in the charge memo, he has remitted the amount sought for by the authorities. The said order is now under challenge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was placed under suspension, in view of the charge memo dated 30.06.90 as mentioned in the charge memo, he has remitted the amount sought for by the authorities. As there was only a shortage of Rs.47/-, the petitioner was directed to deposit double the amount to the 3rd respondent and accordingly, the petitioner remitted Rs.94/- along with his explanation. The 2nd respondent also considering the case of the petitioner, recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner by revocation of the suspension order. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. The respondents have not filed their counter. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not even come to the respondents, after he was placed under suspension on 30.06.90. Since the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 1998, the petitioner cannot ask for a prayer in the present writ petition. Secondly, on the representation made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the request for reinstatement. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to reinstate him in service with all backwages, cannot be considered. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner, while serving as a Noon Meal Organiser in Kudavaadi Union Primary School the Sub-Collector, Hosur from 12.01.87, the Sub-Collector, Hosur, conducted surprise visit on 10.04.90 and found shortage of stocks and assessed the said stock as Rs.47/-. Therefore, he was issued with a charge memo dated 30.06.90, asking to give his explanation and also to pay double the amount of the shortage to the 3rd respondent. Immediately, on receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.94/- as indicated in the charge memo and in addition to that, the petitioner also submitted his detailed explanation. The 2nd respondent, accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner, in his letter No.Na.Ka.3870/90/A4, dated 08.08.91, recommended to the 1st respondent for revocation of the suspension order in order to enable the petitioner to rejoin the duty. But, unfortunately, the 1st respondent has not considered the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and as a result, the petitioner was not able to join back to the service. But, unfortunately, the 1st respondent has not considered the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and as a result, the petitioner was not able to join back to the service. However, the petitioner kept on making repeated representations on various dates viz. 06.02.96, 2.06.96, 10.02.97 and finally on 24.08.97. Since the representations of the petitioner was not answered by the respondents, the petitioner finally, filed O.A.No.7342 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal also directed the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner regarding his reinstatement and pass orders as per rules within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the Tribunal order, the District Collector, Dharmapuri/1st respondent herein rejected the case of the petitioner. 7. In any event, the 1st respondent, though received the recommendation from the 2nd respondent, till date, has not considered the case of the petitioner. In fact, the 1st respondent, while considering the case of the petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal, should have fairly considered the case of the petitioner, either positively or negatively. But unfortunately, the District Collector/1st respondent herein, in spite of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, miserably failed to answer the plight of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, since the 1st respondent has not passed any final order on the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioners prayer is liable to be granted. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service the letter No.1118/Per-N/87, dated 22.12.87, introducing instructions to dispose of the disciplinary cases expeditiously. As per the above said Government letter, the disciplinary authority is bound to take a decision within 10 days, on receipt of the enquiry officers report. Since the 2nd respondent has vividly recommended the case of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order and consequently reinstatement in service, the 1st respondent had not done so within 10 days as per the letter dated 22.12.87. The 1st respondent, after receipt of the recommendation, could have considered either way. Either the petitioner could have been reinstated in service on the basis of the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, or else could have taken further action upon proper enquiry. The 1st respondent, after receipt of the recommendation, could have considered either way. Either the petitioner could have been reinstated in service on the basis of the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, or else could have taken further action upon proper enquiry. As nothing was done, the Tribunal passed an order in O.A.No.7342 of 1998, dated 10.09.98 to consider the petitioners appeal dated 24.08.97 regarding his reinstatement. Following this order, the impugned order came to be passed ignoring the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent. When there was a recommendation by the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order by reinstating the petitioner, without dealing with the same, the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the 1st respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with 50% backwages. No Costs.