JUDGMENT : V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7047 of 2007 (O.A.No.4927 of 2007) allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. 2. We have heard Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. 3. The writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the order of removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant, subsequently promoted as Field Surveyor during 1985, while he was working in the above post, he was absented from duty from 9.12.2001. Hence, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated by the appellant and charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 7.3.1994. For the above charge memo, the respondent submitted his explanation that he was absent from service as he was suffering from Cancer and he was under treatment for the same, hence he could not attend duty. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding that charges are proved, based on the admission made by the respondent herein. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, after following the procedure, removed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4927 of 2002 and the same was transferred to this court and numbered as W.P.No.7047 of 2007. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition following a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR v UNION OF INDIA (2012 (2) SLJ 19) stating that mere unauthorized absence does not amount to misconduct unless it is proved that the unauthorized absence is wilful and hence, the finding of the disciplinary authority, without going into the question whether the unauthorized absence is wilful or not is perverse. Since the respondent attained superannuation in the meantime, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to notionally reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but, without any back-wages. Challenging the above order of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeal was filed. 5. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. 6. Challenging the above order of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeal was filed. 5. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. 6. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the finding of the disciplinary authority is perverse without going into the question whether the unauthorized absence is wilful. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge hence, the writ appeal fails and consequently, it is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.