K. Sreedhar Rao, J 1. The respondent was employed as Sub-Inspector (Telecom) in the office of the Director General of Police, State of Arunachal Pradesh, in the year 1991. he continued to discharge his duties in the said capacity till 1997. A criminal case was registered against the respondent and others. The respondent was subjected to Disciplinary Enquiry and during inquiry he was suspended and later on removed from service after inquiry. 2. This court by order, dated 17.9.2003, passed in WP(C) No. 300 (AP)/ 2002, set aside the order of dismissal and he was reinstated into service. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent remained unauthorized absent with effect from 26.5.2004. A Disciplinary Inquiry was initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The respondent contended that he was suffering from Refractory Depression; therefore, he was not in a position to attend the duties. 4. The respondent filed the petition seeking payment of arrears of salaries and sustenance allowance and also damages of Rs.28,00,000. The respondent has mentioned in the petition that he was suffering from Refractory Depression. A certificate to that effect issued by the Medical Board of North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling is produced. the learned Single Judge referred the respondent for examination by the Gauhati Medical Board. The Board, after examination gave the certificate with the following observations : "The Board has been reconvened again on 14.11.2013 at 11 a.m. as per hon'ble Gauhati high Court order dated 30.9,2013. The patient Shri Sanjib Adhikari 48 yrs./Male, S/o. late Sabrananda Adhikari admitted in Psychiatry ward, Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati on 1.11.2013 (hosp. No. 303382/13, MRD No. 70146) for proper evaluation and corroboration of the earlier documents as asked by Hon'blc gauhati high Court order dated 30.9.2013. The Board after careful evaluation of long continued history (from patient and patient's relatives) of Mr. Sanjib Adhikari, his present clinical examination ward observation, Laboratory and imaging investigations including Psycho-diagnostic assessment and present Mental State Examination - do not fulfill the criteria for Diagnosis of Refractory Depression. However his History and present mental state examination goes in favour of Delusional Disorder - Paranoid type (a kind of psychotic disorder where suspiciousness that is individual is being harmed, harassed or persecuted is the primary feature). However his History and present mental state examination goes in favour of Delusional Disorder - Paranoid type (a kind of psychotic disorder where suspiciousness that is individual is being harmed, harassed or persecuted is the primary feature). From Medical and Neurological point of view patient is having subtle pyramidal signs which may be attributable to past history of trauma or low normal level of Vit B12, which does not cause disability to the individual. Under these circumstances, the board has decided that the patient should receive the following medicines. Rx. 1. tablet Risperidone 2 mg. Sig-1 tab twice daily 2. Tab Trihexiphenidyl 2 mg. Sig-1 tab twice daily 3. Tab B1 + B6 + B12 Sig-1 tab twice daily And advised periodic check-up by Psychiatrist and Neurologist. As opinion differs from the previous Medical Board, the individual may be suggested to attend National Level Medical Institute like Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi or NIMHANS, Bangalore for reevaluation and further opinion." 5. A day before the order was passed in the writ petition, the appellant passed an order in the Disciplinary Inquiry dismissing the respondent for unauthorized absence. 6. A day after such dismissal order, the order in the writ petition is rendered. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition directing the appellant herein to recalculate the amount of arrears of salary and subsistence allowance payable to the respondent herein. 7. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, has filed this appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6739/2004 partly allowed the writ petition and made the follow observations in paragraphs 24 and 26 of the judgment : "24. the petitioner in the writ petition has admitted payment of his salary from 12.2.2004 to 31.3.2004 and also for the month of April 2004. He has admitted as well the payment of subsistence allowance up to the month of April 2001 @ 50% of his pay and also for the periods (a) May 2001 to 7.2.2002 and (b) 8.2.2002 to 30.11.2003. He has admitted as well the payment of subsistence allowance up to the month of April 2001 @ 50% of his pay and also for the periods (a) May 2001 to 7.2.2002 and (b) 8.2.2002 to 30.11.2003. As the respondents in categorical terms have averred that subsistence allowances of the petitioner has been paid in full and further his pay w.e.f. 1.5.2004 has been withheld because of his unauthorized absence from duties w.e.f. 25.5.2004, this court having regard to the constraints in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction when confronted with disputed questions of facts, declines to accept the computation made by him with regard to his entitlements as enumerated in the writ petition as final. The respondents would verify the same, if necessary, by associating the petitioner or his authorized representative(s) as the case may be to quantify the amount payable to him. 26. The official records further divulge that by memorandum No. PSG® 13/ DC-SA/2004 dated 2.2.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pasighat, a fresh enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, in essence on the charge of his unauthorized absence from duties w.e.f. 26.5.2004. Incidentally though the petitioner had been served therewith, the same stand has been taken by his learned counsel on his behalf. Resultantly on a completion of the departmental enquiry ex parte a copy of the enquiry report holding the charge(s) to be proved had been forwarded to the petitioner, which also has remained unresponded on merits. The official records contain a show-cause notice dated 28.8.2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (W) requiring the petitioner to respond to the proposal for imposition of the penalty of removal from service. As on date, however, the order imposing the above penalty has not been passed. Visibly neither the order imposing a penalty of forfeiture of four increments on him nor the initiation of the second departmental enquiry as referred to hereinabove or the proceeding thereof has been challenged in the instant proceeding. As a matter of fact, pleadings on this count are not available on record. In absence of any assailment as required in law made by the petitioner on the above counts this court is not inclined to interfere therewith at this stage. As a matter of fact, pleadings on this count are not available on record. In absence of any assailment as required in law made by the petitioner on the above counts this court is not inclined to interfere therewith at this stage. The petitioner is left at liberty, if so advised to take appropriate steps in this regard. On consideration of the materials on record in their entirety the petition, therefore, stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs." 9. The appellant aggrieved by the said order in the writ petition, has filed this appeal. In the Disciplinary Proceeding, it was found that the respondent is not suffering from any mental disorder and it is because of unauthorized absence, he is removed from service. The report of the Gauhati Medical Board discloses that the respondent was suffering from Delusional Disorder - Paranoid type (a kind of psychotic disorder where suspiciousness that the individual is being harmed, harassed or persecuted is the primary feature) and he was also advised for medical treatment. 10. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Gauhati Medical Board clearly rules out that the respondent is suffering from Refractory Depression. The disorder noticed by the Gauhati Medical Board is not of such a nature, which prevents him from attending duties. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition in paragraph 26 has also made an observation that the court is not inclined to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceeding. Therefore, whatever the findings in the Disciplinary Proceeding are valid and the order of dismissal is just and proper in the circumstances. 11. The counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not remained unauthorisedly absent for any deliberate reason. The psychotic disorder, which respondent was suffering was not of recent origin and he has a past history of trauma or low normal level of Vit B12. The psychotic disorder whatever noticed by the Gauhati Medical Board clearly discloses a valid and justifiable reason on the part of the respondent for his absence and he was not really conscious of his conduct and actions. He was in an abnormal mind frame, therefore, submitted that the order of dismissal passed on the ground of unauthorized absence is bad and law and the same is to be set aside. 12. He was in an abnormal mind frame, therefore, submitted that the order of dismissal passed on the ground of unauthorized absence is bad and law and the same is to be set aside. 12. On stern consideration of the rival submissions, it is seen that the ground of unauthorized absence, which is made basis for dismissal of the respondent from the service does not appear to be tenable one. The Medical Board's report discloses that he is suffering from a psychotic disorder and he would not be fully conscious of his actions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent deliberately remained absent from duty. The Disciplinary Authority should have been more liberal and benign in considering the case of the respondent. It is true that the psychotic disorder, which the respondent is suffering from may disable him from discharging his duties effectively, however, the respondent has rendered considerable length of service, which will be around 23 years as on this date; therefore, keeping in view the social and the financial condition of the respondent in the context of equities, we, therefore, propose that the respondent be compulsorily retired from service and he shall be given the pensionary benefits consequent to his compulsory retirement. Accordingly the writ appeal and the contempt case are disposed of. 13. The fees of amicus curiae's is fixed at Rs.10,000 and the State shall pay the fee to the amicus curiae.