1 WP 2688 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2688 of 2003 Janardan Dagaduji Ambre ..... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Neel G. Helekar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr.R.D.Rane, for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. By the above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the respondents by which order the petitioner’s service was terminated in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings held by the respondents against the petitioner. The above petition has been heard from time to time and we by our order dated 29-07-2010, on a consideration of the service rules in question, had observed that the since the punishment as and by way of termination was not provided in the rules, the respondents may reconsider the said issue as regards the imposition of appropriate punishment and thereafter, pass appropriate 2 WP 2688 of 2003 orders in that behalf. 2. Accordingly, the respondents have reconsidered the issue and by a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-08-2010, have decided to substitute the punishment of termination with “compulsory retirement”. The papers leading to the passing of the said resolution, as also the said resolution bearing the signature of the Managing Director Shri Shirish Karle, are tendered across the bar by Shri Rane, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. The said papers and the resolution are taken on record and marked ‘X” collectively. 3. In view of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of compulsory retiring the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to proceed with the matter and accordingly, seeks withdrawal of the petition on the instructions of the petitioner, who is personally present in the Court. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. 4. Needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits that a person who is compulsory retired is entitled to, under the rules in question. It is further needless to observe that the punishment in question stands substituted from the date when the original order of termination was issued. The respondents may pay the petitioner to 3 WP 2688 of 2003 whatever he is entitled to within a period of 12 weeks from today. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )