S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the learned Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in issuing certain directions upon the respondent as regards imposition of some punishment upon the petitioner while setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass. Certain charges were framed against the petitioner on the basis of alleged misconduct committed by him in the years 1970 and 1972. A charge memo was issued in the year 1980. The petitioner filed his explanation in relation thereto in the year 1983. On or about 30-11-1990, the petitioner, on the date of his retirement was directed to be dismissed from service. Questioning the same, the said original application was filed on three grounds namely, that the order of punishment having passed by the appellate authority, the same was illegal inasmuch as in terms thereof his right of appeal had been taken away; and that the punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner after a lapse of 18 years as thereby a great prejudice has been caused to him as also on the ground that having regard to the fact that for a period of long seven years nothing has been issued to petitioner upon submission of his explanation, the same must be held to have been accepted. ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Surait ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, united Commercial Bank and others, 1995 (2) SCC 474 , as also the decision of this court in G. Muralidhar v. Chairman and managing Director, ECIL, 1996 (1) ALD 897 , held that the order of punishment impugned before it was not valid. While doing so, it directed. "we feel that proper course for the respondents for the charges proved is that they should allow the applicant to retire from service on 30-11-1990 and take action under Section 9 of A. P. Pension Code and impose a reasonable cut in the pension and release the other pensionary benefits to the applicant. The above suggested exercise should be completed by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The above suggested exercise should be completed by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. " ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the fact that the order of punishment was held to be illegal, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in issuing the aforementioned direction. The learned tribunal, in our opinion, had no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to take recourse to certain course of action which, according to it, would be a reasonable one, inasmuch as it is for the concerned authority to apply its own mind under the A. P. Pension Code as to whether action should be initiated or not as regards the fact situation of the case as also the order in which the misconduct was alleged. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.