S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge has been made by the petitioner in this Special Civil application to the order of respondent company dated 29th November, 1985 under which the penalty of withholding the promotion of the petitioner for a period of six months from the date of the order has been imposed. On 29th of November, 1985 when the order of penalty has been passed, the petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer in the public works Department, Government of Gujarat. The petitioner has retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th April, 1986 i. e. , within five months from the date of imposition of penalty. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order has raised two fold contentions. Firstly it is contended that the Enquiry officer has not found any of the charges levelled against the petitioner proved and though the disciplinary Authority was competent to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry officer and to record its own finding on the basis of the material on the record, but before doing so, it has failed to make know the grounds of its disagreement with the Enquiry officers report and to give the proper opportunity to the delinquent officer to submit his explanation which procedure precisely has not been followed in the present case and straightaway the order impugned in the Special Civil Application has been passed. This order being against the basic Principle of Natural Justice, the same deserves to be set aside by this Court only this ground. ( 3 ) IT is next contended that whatever the fault and illegality found in the working of the petitioner in the matter of calling of tender, that action has been approved by the district Panchayat and as such it cannot be said to be the acts of misconduct of the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel Shri H. L. Jani appearing for the respondent contended that the impugned order is contained reasons of disagreement of the Enquiry Officer. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel Shri H. L. Jani appearing for the respondent contended that the impugned order is contained reasons of disagreement of the Enquiry Officer. However, the learned counsel for the respondent very fairly admitted that the petitioner has not been furnished with the reasons and the grounds of disagreement of the Disciplinary authority with the reason and ground of the Enquiry officer and as well as he was not given opportunity of making his representation. But, merely because of this lapse in the procedure, it is contended that it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) ON being asked by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly admitted that he is not in a position to say that between 29th November, 1985 to 30th april, 1986 any person junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the next higher post. He further very fairly admited that he is not in a position to state whether because of penalty, any promotion or any of service benefits has been denied to the petitioner. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that he is not in a position to say that whether because of penalty, any monetary loss has been suffered or resulted to the petitioner. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a stigma on the career of the petitioner which cause prejudice to him. ( 7 ) IT is true that the procedure which is to be followed in this matter has not been complied with by the disciplinary authority, but, nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner has unable to show that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because of non-observation of procedure which is to be followed in the present case before passing the impugned order dated 29th November, 1985. ( 8 ) THE order impugned in the petition has not resulted in any loss whatsoever to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired from services on 30th April, 1986 and where the order impugned has not put to any loss to the petitioner needs not be quashed and set aside. ( 8 ) THE order impugned in the petition has not resulted in any loss whatsoever to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired from services on 30th April, 1986 and where the order impugned has not put to any loss to the petitioner needs not be quashed and set aside. Truely speaking in the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the grievance of the petitioner is only remains to be an academic matter. Even if this order is set aside, nothing will go to the petitioner except to his satisfaction that he got the order set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner unable to satisfy this Court that even if this Court taking the impugned order to have casted stigma to the petitioner how it has resulted in any loss or caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that because of this order, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice as well as any monetary loss, it is not a fit case where this Court has to make interfere in the impugned order under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is yet another reason for which no interference in the matter of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution calls for. After acceptance of the contention of the petitioner it is not the case where this Court will set the petitioner free from the disciplinary proceedings. In that case this Court will order to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage where defect is found by this Court in the procedure. The petitioner, as observed earlier, retired from government services on 30. 4. 1986 and after about 12 years of his retirement, I do not consider it to be in his interest also when the impugned order has not resulted into any loss whatsoever to him to adopt this course. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. .