*1* kps I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4442/2009 Ratan Gaba Teli. ..Petitioner -Versus- The District and Sessions Judge, Thane and others. ..Respondents .... Mr.A.V. Chatuphale, for the Petitioner. Mr.V.B. Naik, for the Respondents No.1 and 2. .... CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date : 19th July, 2010. P.C. 1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 03rd June, 1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18th November, 2006. 2 The Petitioner above named was at the relevant time working as Assistant Superintendent in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shahapur. The Petitioner was charge sheeted for absentism and inquiry was conducted into the said allegation and the charge was held to be proved against the Petitioner. The Inquiry Officer at the relevant time recommended the punishment of stoppage of three increments. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the learned District Judge, Thane accepted the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of stoppage of three *2* increments which was to take effect retrospectively from the year 1991. Aggrieved by the said punishment vide order dated 03.06.1996, the Petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.11.2006 confirmed the said punishment. 3 It is required to be noted that contemporaneously the Petitioner was charged of accepting illegal gratification which inquiry has resulted in the punishment of dismissal imposed against the Petitioner vide order dated 04.06.1992. The said dismissal order was subject matter of companion Writ Petition No.4441/2009 which we have dismissed by our judgment and order dated 15.07.2010 thereby upholding the punishment of dismissal proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4 In our view in the light of the dismissal of the said Writ Petition No.4441/2009, the reliefs claimed in the present petition need not now be considered. The reliefs claimed in the present petition would have relevance only if the order of dismissal is set aside by the Apex Court. We, therefore, dispose of the present petition as having become infructuous on account of the fact that the petition challenging the dismissal order has been dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to revive the present petition if the dismissal order is set aside by the Apex Court. 5 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J)