JUDGMENT : (ANANDA SEN, J. ) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2002, by which, he has been dismissed from service. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 22.08.2003 and the order passed on his memorial rejecting his prayer upholding the punishment. 2. Heard the parties and I have gone through the impugned orders and documents. I have also gone through the file of Departmental Proceeding. 3. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without affording opportunity of hearing, to cross-examine the witnesses and to take part in the Departmental Proceeding, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. As per the petitioner, though the dates were fixed in the Departmental proceeding, but no notice was sent to the petitioner, which would be evident from the file itself. 4. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was served the charge memo which he has received. Receiving of the charge memo will lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the departmental proceeding and he has deliberately not presented himself in the proceeding, thus the proceeding proceeded ex parte and the impugned order was passed. He further submits that there was no violation of the principle of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the Departmental Proceeding, which he has not availed. As per him, the appeal of the petitioner and the memorial have also been dismissed. 5. The petitioner was appointed as constable on 20 th March, 1982 Body-guard to the Minister. He claims that when he was suffering from mental ailment, he handed over his service revolver and ammunition to the concerned Minister and left. 6. On the aforesaid allegation, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he was absconded from the place of posting. A charge memo was served, which was received by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer concluded the Departmental Proceeding and opined that the charge of misconduct has been proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from his service vide order dated 18.02.2002. The appeal of the petitioner as well as his memorial was also dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer concluded the Departmental Proceeding and opined that the charge of misconduct has been proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from his service vide order dated 18.02.2002. The appeal of the petitioner as well as his memorial was also dismissed. 7. Considering the argument of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case properly, I had called for the records of the Departmental Proceeding. After going through the Departmental Proceeding records, I find that though the petitioner has received the charge memo but the Enquiry Officer did not communicate the dates of the Departmental Proceeding. On the first date, the petitioner did not appear, though there was a direction to issue notice to him. Similar is the recording on the other dates. In the proceeding, the petitioner was directed to be informed and notice was to be issued, but from the entire order-sheets and the file, I could not find any material to suggest whether the petitioner was informed about the dates of the Departmental Proceeding or not. There is no whisper that the notices were sent/issued or was received by the petitioner so that he could come to know about the dates of the Departmental Proceeding. Though there is office copy of the notice, but there is nothing on record to suggest that whether the petitioner had received the said notice or not or the notices have actually issued to the petitioner or not. There is no acknowledgment of receipt of notice. 8. From the entire file, I find that though the order-sheet in which, it was mentioned that the notices be issued to the petitioner but in absence of service report of the said notice or issuance of the same, I come to the conclusion that during the Enquiry Proceeding, the petitioner has not been served with any notice informing the dates of departmental proceeding. A second show cause notice has been served to the petitioner, which he has received, which is evident from the file. Thus, the Enquiry Proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner is against the principle of natural justice, which needs to be set aside. 9. Since the entire proceeding is in violation of the principle of natural justice, the Departmental Proceeding including the consequential order of punishment is set aside 10. Thus, the Enquiry Proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner is against the principle of natural justice, which needs to be set aside. 9. Since the entire proceeding is in violation of the principle of natural justice, the Departmental Proceeding including the consequential order of punishment is set aside 10. Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, there is no occasion to reinstate him in service. The period during which, the petitioner was under termination, will be treated to be in service and his all retiral benefits should be calculated and paid to the petitioner considering the said period, in his service. 11. So far as back wages is concerned, since the petitioner has not worked and there is no whisper in the entire petition that he sat idle during the said period, there is no question of paying him full back wages as payment of back wages is not a matter of right. By way of compensation (as his dismissal is in violation of principle of natural justice), I direct the respondent-State to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh only) to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.