Judgment Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. Admit the petition. 2. At the time of final hearing, this matter has become easier for the Court to deal with the matter. The petitioner, when he was alive, filed this writ petition to challenge the order of dismissal, which was passed on account of the unauthorized absence for a long time. 3. On 08.06.2012, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, though at the interlocutory stage found as follows:- “On merits, this Court does not find it fit and proper case for interference, as PAC is a disciplinary force and remained absent from service without any authority is a serious charge, which has been proved against the petitioner. All the same, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has put in about 21 years before his dismissal from service. A Government Order dated 27.10.2008 has also been brought to the notice of this Court where in such matters where an employee has put in more than 20 years of service, compulsory retirement can be considered. Therefore, at this stage, without going on merit, this Court is only making request to Mr. Lalit Samant, Brief Holder present for the State, in this regard, to get instruction in writing as to whether the State Government can convert the compulsory retirement. The instruction must be in writing.” 4. Today no instruction is forthcoming. I think this Court should not wait for further instruction; the Court will decide the matter in accordance with law. 5. No one has preferred any appeal against the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge, hence, the above findings has reached to its finality, as it is well settled principle of law that principle of res judicata can be attracted at the subsequent stage of the same proceeding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Y.B. Patil & others Vs Y.L. Patil reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 392 has held as under:- “It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only separate subsequent proceedings. They also get attracted in subsequent stage of the proceedings. Once an order impugned in the course of proceeding becomes final, it will be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding.” 6. They also get attracted in subsequent stage of the proceedings. Once an order impugned in the course of proceeding becomes final, it will be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding.” 6. Therefore, the finding of this Court with regard to the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be examined by this Court at all. At the same time, Court’s observation that the order of dismissal was not justified can also be taken into consideration. The Court earlier observed that Government Order permit to convert the dismissal order into compulsory retirement when a delinquent has put in 20 years of service and that I can say, this punishment is shockingly disproportionate and this was not examined by the Disciplinary Authority. 7. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of dismissal and at the same time give liberty to the respondents to consider any punishment, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge or any other punishment which is short of dismissal or removal from services. This shall be considered by the respondents without fail, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. In case of failure, the issue of punishment will be closed chapter 8. The present petitioner, who gets all the benefits, as permissible under law, granted after order is passed. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order as to costs.