Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Me.Thu.Na.Ka.No.Mae.1/Aa1/2550/99, dated 07.04.2000 as also the enquiry proceedings being null and void, illegal and invalid, with the consequential relief of reinstating the petitioner in service with all service monetary benefits. 2. It is not disputed, that the petitioner has since retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2009, the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in service is rendered infructuous. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Cable Fault Worker, High Tension (HT) Section of Electric Department, Corporation of Chennai on 03.01.1968 on temporary basis. The petitioner was made permanent after rendering 10 years of service on 03.01.1978. In the month of January 1999, the petitioner suffered from leprosy and went on leave. 4. It is submitted by petitioner that inspite of the fact, that respondents were aware, that the petitioner was suffering from leprosy and was on leave, he was treated as deserter, for want of medical leave application with medical certificate. 5. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 30.01.1999, calling for his explanation in three days, further stipulating that in case the petitioner failed to submit explanation, he will be placed under suspension. Inspite of the fact, that petitioner failed to submit the explanation, still he was not placed under suspension. 6. The petitioner was served with charge memo dated 07.04.2000. The charges framed against petitioner were; i. not attended to duty from 21.01.1999 without prior permission; ii. reprehensible conduct in causing impediment in Corporation duties. iii. Reprehensible conduct of irresponsibility in discharging of official duties. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner, that the petitioner was not placed under suspension to avoid payment of subsistence allowance. The petitioner showed his inability to attend the enquiry, because of leprosy, but submitted his explanation on 30.09.2002, that it was for the reason beyond his control, that he was not able to attend the duty. He undertook not to repeat the lapse again. 8. The enquiry officer did not proceed with the enquiry to prove the charges, and took explanation of petitioner to be the admission of the misconduct and thus held the petitioner guilty of charge. The procedure adopted is not sustainable in law, as admission had to be read as a whole. He undertook not to repeat the lapse again. 8. The enquiry officer did not proceed with the enquiry to prove the charges, and took explanation of petitioner to be the admission of the misconduct and thus held the petitioner guilty of charge. The procedure adopted is not sustainable in law, as admission had to be read as a whole. If the explanation is read, the petitioner could not be said to be deserter. 9. The petitioner made repeated request to the authorities to take liberal view, specially in view of ailment suffered by petitioner. It is the case of petitioner, that inspite of lapse of more than four years from the date of enquiry report, and seven years from the date of alleged occurrence, no order was passed, by the competent authority. 10. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court to challenge the charge memo and subsequently, enquiry held in pursuance thereof. It was during the pendency of writ petition, that the impugned order was passed, imposing punishment of warning to petitioner. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that inspite of imposing punishment of warning, the petitioner was not allowed to join duty nor he was paid any amount. 12. This case was referred to for conciliation, wherein respondents placed on record the order, that the petitioner will be released pensionary benefits in view of the fact, that he had attained the age of superannuation. 13. The grievance of petitioner is, that while calculating pension and other benefits, the service of petitioner is being counted from only 01.07.2007, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was asked to rejoin duty. In pursuance to which, the petitioner had attended office for 55 days before attaining the age of superannuation. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the minor punishment of warning, as the petitioner stands superannuated, and the punishment order does not come in way of his retiral benefit and pension. 15. The prayer of petitioner is that in view of the punishment of warning, the petitioner should be granted pensionary benefits by taking into account the total service rendered by him from the date of appointment till the date of superannuation, and that he should also be paid for the period he was kept out of service. 16. 15. The prayer of petitioner is that in view of the punishment of warning, the petitioner should be granted pensionary benefits by taking into account the total service rendered by him from the date of appointment till the date of superannuation, and that he should also be paid for the period he was kept out of service. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that keeping in view the fact, that the petitioner was suffering from leprosy, lenient view was taken and punishment of warning was imposed, though the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of absence from duty for a long period. 17. It is also the stand of respondents, that pension papers of petitioner have been forwarded to competent authority, therefore the writ petition is totally misconceived, thus, deserves to be dismissed. The contention of respondents cannot be accepted. The petitioner could not be treated to be guilty of serious misconduct, as he was suffering from leprosy. Even otherwise as petitioner was imposed a punishment of warning, he is entitled to all service benefits. 18. In view of the admitted position, as explained herein-above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. that the petitioner be granted pension by taking into consideration the service rendered by him from 03.01.1968 till the date of superannuation, in view of the fact that the service rendered on temporary service, which is followed by regular service is also required to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefit ii. that the petitioner admittedly having not worked from 21.01.1999 till 07.05.2007, he cannot claim salary on the principle of "No Work No Pay", but keeping in view the fact, that the petitioner has been imposed minor punishment of warning, this period shall be treated as leave of the kind due in terms of FR 81(c)(3). iii. that the respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, backwages, leave wages etc. in terms of leave rules, within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 19. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.