G. Narendra, J.

1. The above writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the Order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short] at Bangalore, dated 20.03.2013 rendered in Application No. 369/2010.

2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner was appointed in the Karnataka State Reserve Police Force as Anuyayi-42, C-Force, 8th Battalion vide Order of Appointment dated 18.05.1984. The petitioner was continued in service till 30.11.2003 and was removed from service with effect from 01.12.2003 pursuant to the order of dismissal dated 29.11.2003. It is alleged that the petitioner unauthorizedly absented himself from 06.10.2002 till date of dismissal i.e., 30.11.2003. Noticing his unauthorized absence, a Caution Notice dated 07.11.2002 was forwarded to his address, which he failed to receive. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner under the Karnataka State Police [Disciplinary Proceedings] Rules, 1965 and an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed in terms of Rule 6 to inquire into the charges leveled against the applicant. The inquiry was conducted and the report submitted. On the basis of the report, the 3rd respondent got issued a show cause notice dated 13.10.2003; whereby the delinquent/petitioner was put on notice that it was proposed to impose punishment of dismissal from service and he was also called upon to submit his explanation to the said notice. No reply was submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, an order of dismissal came to be passed against the petitioner while treating the period of unauthorized absence from 06.10.2002 to 30.11.2003 as one of leave without allowance by Order dated 29.11.2003.

3. After the passage of nearly 2 years, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide representations dated 22.08.2005, 12.09.2005 and 17.10.2005. The Competent Authority-2nd respondent after consideration of the appeal was pleased to reject the same on the premise that the same was filed belatedly and as per the provisions of Rule 11 ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of the order and the delinquent had not even furnished the reasons for the delay. The appeal came to be rejected by Order dated 17.01.2006. The petitioner is said to have submitted yet another representation dated 02.08.2006 to the 2nd respondent, which came up for consideration and was disposed of by endorsement dated 16.09.2006, whereby the delinquent employee was informed to pursue revision petition dated 09.02.2006. It is stated that the 1st respondent-Government after considering various grounds including the length of service rendered by the petitioner was pleased to alter and modify the punishment from one of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. The said order of the Government on the revision petition came to be passed on 18.05.2007.

4. The petitioner accepted the same and did not initiate any proceedings to question the legality of the order passed by the 1st respondent on his review petition and the same became final.

5. In 2010, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by way of application on the sole contention that he has been discriminated against while imposing punishment. That in the case of another delinquent, who was working as a driver and was dismissed from service after an inquiry on the charge of having given a false income certificate to the society for obtaining a loan. But, on the review petition filed, the revisionary authority modified the order of dismissal to that of withholding of 5 annual increments and hence on parity the order of compulsory retirement is discriminatory and vitiated by arbitrariness. On coming to know of the said order, he submitted a representation dated 26.08.2008 praying for treatment on parity. But, the said representation came to be rejected by endorsement dated 17.01.2009 on the ground that a second revision is not maintainable and hence he preferred the Application on 04.01.2010.

6. In t