Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Sanitary worker under the respondent since 04.06.1975. It is submitted that from 18.12.1994, the petitioner could not attend duty due to jaundice. The petitioner undertook treatment for jaundice at Coonoor by staying at his relative's house, for want of money for taking treatment at specialised hospital. 2. It is the submission of the petitioner, that his father died during this period, therefore it was on recovery from illness that the petitioner approached the respondent for joining duty in the year 2001. The petitioner was at that time informed that his service stood terminated, on 20.08.1996 under FR 18(3) for being absent for more than one year. 3. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of termination from service, on the ground that FR 18(3), (Unamended) was quashed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal being ultra vires, therefore, the impugned order passed against the petitioner is not sustainable in law, having been passed by invoking power under the rule which stands struck down, whereas as per amended rule holding of departmental enquiry is mandatory. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though, the order was passed on 20.08.1996, but it was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the order only on 17.12.2001, and has approached the Court immediately thereafter. The writ petition therefore, does not suffer from delay and latches. 5. On consideration, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under FR 18(3) (unamended) which stands quashed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in law. It is admitted case that though the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on a charge of misconduct but no enquiry was held to prove the charge. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted back to the respondent to take action in accordance with law, if so advised. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any backwages from 18.12.1994 till 2001, as the petitioner admittedly, did not perform duty and had absented himself without sanction of leave, on the principle of no work no pay. No costs.