( 1 ) THE petitioner has directed this petition against the orders dated 20/05/1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New delhi dismissing the petitioner s OA. No. 1012/98. The petitioner in the application before the Tribunal had challenged the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing upon him a penalty of cut of 10% amount from his pension for a period of five years. The petitioner had sought the following three reliefs before the Tribunal:

A) Pass a writ, order or direction to call for the records in the disciplinary case in respect of the applicant and after perusing the same, quash the order dated 16. 10. 1996 bearing No. 14033/3/91-UT. b) Pass a writ, order or direction consequently, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release to the applicant his entire pension from the date of the said order dated 16. 10. 1996 and also direct the respondents to continue paying the applicant his full pension as per rules. c) Pass a writ, order or directing direction the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 40,615. 85 paise along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum forthwith, being the amount spent towards medical expenses incurred to be reimbursed by the respondent.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal rejected the relief (c ) as it constituted a separate cause of action. Relief (b) was to follow relief (a ). These two reliefs were declined on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were taken out giving him every opportunity to put forth his version and the Tribunal could not re-appreciate the evidence and act as an Appellate Authority.

( 3 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitio ner is that no doubt the present case cannot be termed as a case of no evidence, but the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated on account of inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter passing final order of penalty against the petitioner that too after six years of his retirement.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner i. e. whether the delay did vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, we may refer to a brief resume of facts and sequence of events.

( 5 ) AT the relevant time, the petitioner was a Cashier in G. B. Pant Hospital. The incident relates to the period 7/10/1978 to 1 1/10/1978. On 12/10/1978 the petitioner found the key No. 1 of the cash chest missing from the steel almirah in which he had kept the same. He reported the matter to his superiors. On 13/10/1978 duplicate key was taken from the medical Superintendent and on the cash chest being opened, a sum of rs. 36,935. 80 paise was found missing. An FIR was lodged and one mr. H-L. Gulati faced the prosecution. But ultimately he was acquitted on 1 3/12/1979 for lack of evidence. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the first time after nine years by serving a charge sheet dated 3/02/1987 on the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who gave the report after recording the evidence of the parties on 16/06/1989. The disciplinary Authority, however, did not pass any orders imposing penalty till 16/10/1996. hi the meantime, before the report of the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was transferred on 21/03/1989 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA. No. 807/89 before the Tribunal. The transfer orders were quashed vide order dated 4/07/1989 of the Tribunal. The petitioner retired on 31/10/1990 as Cashier from Maulana Azad Medical College and almost after one year of his retirement vide order dated 2 3/09/1991 provisional pension equivalent to maximum pension was granted to him. The petitioner also challenged the Enquiry Report before the tribunal by filing OA. No. 1322/95 which was disposed of on 22/03/1996 with the directions to the respondents to pass the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months. After these directions, on