1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 2011 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. NOVEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.12.2009 in Original Application No. 2003 of 2005 was not assailed by the petitioner – Union of India. By that order, for reasons recorded, CAT has directed disciplinary authority to reconsider with a view to impose a “suitable minor penalty”. This order was not questioned by Union of India before this Court at any point of time. On the contrary, the employee filed a review petition No. 2001 of 2010 and that review petition has been decided on 28.04.2010. The CAT has directed his reinstatement from the date of his removal and the treatment to be given to intervening period i.e. the period commencing from the date of his removal till the date of his actual reinstatement was left to be decided by the present petitioner. After this order dated 2 28.04.2010, present petition has been filed before this Court on 06.07.2010 questioning both the orders. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner on the question of acquiescence. We find that though there was a prayer to review filed by present Respondent No. 2 – employee, the petitioner took no steps to challenge the earlier order. It is apparent that in review, there could not have been any order to their advantage. Thus, they acquiesced an order of remand and as that order directed them to impose only a minor penalty, the major penalty like discharge, dismissal or termination was, therefore, ruled out. In view of this position only, CAT had directed reinstatement. The petitioners then could have pointed out to CAT that they were preparing to challenge the original order dated 22.12.2009. However, that was not done. We, therefore, find the order in review dated 28.04.2010 only consequential and not open to challenge. The petition is, therefore, misconceived and rejected accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.