Judgment 1. The present writ petition is transferred O.A.No.4077 of 2003 from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner challenges the order of the third respondent, wherein and whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a watchman on temporary basis at Government Higher Secondary School on 14-03-1967. He was promoted as a peon on 04-10-1975. He was discharging his duties till 10-05-1983 effectively without any break in service. He applied for medical leave from 11-05-1983 to 15-10-1986. He has become mentally ill and became unconscious, even for a day or at times, days together. Therefore, he was not in a position to discharge his duties properly. (ii) Later on, he came to know that he developed amnesia and as a result of which he forgot himself. Because of this mental disorder, the petitioner often left the work place to unknown destination. The petitioner has got medical records to show that he was treated for mental disorder and during the year 2002, he slowly recovered and became medically fit to undertake any type of work. Therefore, he gave a representation on 25-02-2002 to the third respondent requesting him to reinstate in service with other benefits. The third respondent forwarded the petitioner’s application to the first respondent for further course of action. The third respondent through a letter dated 11-03-2003 and 12-04-2003 recommended to the second respondent for consideration of the petitioner’s case. (iii) On the other hand, the second respondent issued a charge memo on 02-05-2003 calling for explanation. The petitioner gave his explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was referred to the District Medical Officer, Sivagangai to get a report with regard to his mental illness. On 16-05-2003, the Medical Board examined the petitioner and issued a certificate stating that he suffered due to Schizophrenia disease and ratified the leave from 16-04-1990 to 15-05-2003 and further certified that as of 16-05-2003, he was mentally fit. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a show cause notice by questioning his absence from 11-05-1983 to 15-04-1990. The petitioner gave explanation and without considering the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed on 27-05-2003. The petitioner was due to retire from service on 31-05-2003. 3. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a show cause notice by questioning his absence from 11-05-1983 to 15-04-1990. The petitioner gave explanation and without considering the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed on 27-05-2003. The petitioner was due to retire from service on 31-05-2003. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated as follows: The petitioner was absent from duty for more than twenty years, i.e., from 06-10-1981 to 24-02-2002 without proper leave applications, medical certificates and physical fitness certificates and without even formerly intimating to the Head Master concerned. Therefore, charges were levelled against him under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on 03-05-2003. As the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted on 13-05-2003. A medical certificate, dated 16-05-2003, was issued by a Single Medical Board, Sivagangai to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from psychiatric problem based on the clinical condition and investigation done, and that, he was fit to join duty on 16-05-2003. The leave already applied from 16-04-1990 to 15-05-2003 was also ratified by the Single Medical Board. The Board certificate does not cover the period prior to 15-04-1990. Moreover, recovered evidence was produced for the absence from duty for the period from 16-10-1981 to 15-04-1990. Therefore an order of dismissal was issued on 27-05-2003. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. The petitioner was working as a Peon. The case of the petitioner is that he was in effective and actual service from 14-03-1967 to 10-05-1983 and applied for medical leave from 11-05-1983 to 15-10-1986 due to his mental disorder. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has absented from duty without leave and therefore, they issued charge memo on 03-05-2003, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 6. From the perusal of the charges, it could be seen that the alleged delinquency took place between the year 1981 to 1986, for which the respondents have chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings only in the year 2003, that is, nearly after 19years. There is absolutely no explanation, whatsoever, given as to why no action was initiated against the petitioner, if he is absented himself without leave or sanction of leave, during those periods, as claimed in the charge sheet, then and there. There is absolutely no explanation, whatsoever, given as to why no action was initiated against the petitioner, if he is absented himself without leave or sanction of leave, during those periods, as claimed in the charge sheet, then and there. On the other hand, it is very clear that the charge memo came to be issued by the respondents only after the petitioner approached the respondents seeking for re-employment or/employment through his application dated 25-02-2002. It is relevant to quote the application of the petitioner dated 25-02-2002, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 7. From a perusal of the representation given by the petitioner, it could be seen that the petitioner himself admitted that he was working till 10-05-1983 and thereafter, he was not aware as to what happened to him due to mental illness. Therefore, he sought for employment at any place in the district. The respondents should have considered the said application and passed orders on the same taking the request of the petitioner, based on the family circumstances and other reasons stated by the petitioner therein. On the other hand, the respondent had issued the charge memo on 03-05-2003 for the alleged delinquency took place between the years 1981 to 1990. Even on a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the respondents have dismissed the petitioner from service from 27-05-2003. This Court is unable to appreciate the course of action taken by the respondents in this matter. No doubt, the petitioner is said to be absent for nineteen years. The respondents should have taken action then and there by issuing a charge memo and passing an order of punishment, immediately. But admittedly, they have not done anything for nearly two decades and only after a period of nineteen years, the respondents issued the charge memo. 8. On the other hand , the conduct of the petitioner is also not appreciable, in view of the fact that he has kept quiet for nineteen years and made a representation to the respondent on 25-02-2002 for an employment at any place in the district. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the actions of both the parties are not appreciable and sustainable in the eye of law. 9. However, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order solely on the ground of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the actions of both the parties are not appreciable and sustainable in the eye of law. 9. However, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order solely on the ground of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. It is also to be noted at this juncture, that the impugned order came to be passed just three days prior to date of the petitioner’s superannuation. At the same time, the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation, he cannot have the benefit of reinstatement in service or backwages, as prayed for by him. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for granting pension by counting all the services rendered by him upto 10-05-1983. Insofar as the disputed period of service is concerned, as the period between 16-04-1990 and 15-05-2003, was already ratified by the Medical Board, Sivangangai, the same shall also be taken into account. All other periods of absence shall not be taken into account. Such an exercise of considering the petitioner’s case and passing appropriate orders on the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and disbursing the same, shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.