-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2006 Sudhir Sakharam Kamble ...Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Mr. J.M. Tanpure, instructed by Mr. A.P. Vanarse, for the petitioner. Smt. S.V. Bharucha for the Union of India. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by which the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 897 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner. 2. The petitioner, without justifiable reason, remained absent without submitting any application in advance. A charge-sheet dated 28-8-99 was served on the petitioner which followed the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner herein was subjected to an order of compulsory retirement by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order on 25th April, 2000. It is not in dispute that on the ground of unauthorised absence for about six months, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary -2- proceedings. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of departmental appeal. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26th September, 2002, as the same was preferred after a considerable period of two years. The revision application also met with the same fate. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal. 3. It is not in dispute that the order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority after about two years and, therefore, the appellant authority dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also received the benefits which he was entitled to as per the order of compulsory retirement. That apart, the Tribunal has also considered the fact that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him regarding unauthorised absence which observations have been made by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of its judgment. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspect, in our view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner had already taken benefits as per the order of compulsory retirement which fact is also recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the -3- Tribunal as the petitioner has lost before the appellate authority as well as before the revisional authority and the Tribunal has also considered the case of the petitioner in detail and rejected the application. On the question of quantum of punishment, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and, as stated earlier, the petitioner has already taken the benefits on the basis of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regarding compulsory retirement. We hardly find any substance in the writ petition. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.