Judgment 1. Two Hon ble Members of the Tribunal have reached the same conclusion on the claim petition by their order of 9 April 2000, which has been impugned in the present petition. 2. Kameshwar Jha was appointed as a Postal Clerk in Darbhanga Division on 28 December 1954. The allegation against him in a departmental proceedings is to the effect that he had used a forged marksheet for getting an appointment on 10 April 1960. The departmental proceedings were impugned by Title Suit no. 234 of 1967/11 of 1975, which was dismissed giving rise to an appeal being T.A. 24 of 1993 before the District Judge, Darbhanga. While the appeal was pending before the District Judge, the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was enacted and the case was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was registered as Claim Case no. TA-7 of 1993, Kameshwar Jha V/s. Union of India & ors. 3. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the departmental proceedings Kameshwar Jha had not received adequate opportunity to defend himself. By this time, Kameshwar Jha had retired. The Tribunal was of the view that if the departmental proceedings were re-done as de novo, it would serve no useful purpose. As the applicant Kameshwar Jha had not worked, the Tribunal denied him the back wages but, held him entitled to pensionary benefits as would be due from the date of his retirement on superannuation determined at the rate applicable at the time of retirement. 4. In any case the applicant has been sufficiently punished and for the period for which he has not worked no emoluments are being given to him. The Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal because even if the Court would have interfered with the Tribunals order it would be tantamount flogging a dead horse. 5. The Court has no reason to take a second opinion on the judgment of the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.