JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI J. — This writ petition challenges the validity, legality and propriety of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.389 of 1997 dated 27th August, 1998 whereby and whereun¬der learned Tribunal directed the Respondent No.1 to proceed ahead with the Departmental Proceeding after obtaining the Presi¬dent’s sanction. The petitioner was undisputedly working as a Shop Superintendent, Carriage Repair Workshop, Mancheswar. On 27.7.1995 hardly a few days before the retirement of the peti¬tioner, the opp.party No.3 issued a notice to him where it was stated as to why a Departmental Proceeding would not be initiated against him for the loss to the tune of Rs.70, 706/- caused due to his negligence. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his show-cause. Even then the opp.party No.3 having not been satisfied with the said show-cause directed a Departmental Proceeding would be initiated against him. Even after the written statement of defence was filed by the petitioner, the charges were framed and he was found to be responsible for the loss to the tune of Rs.70, 706/-. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Disci¬plinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. But that also did not yield any result and was shelved for a quite long time. Therefore, being aggrieved by such inaction by the appellate authority, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. A short question was pressed into service before the Tribunal that could the Disciplinary authority impose punishment against a retired employee without obtaining sanction from the President of India. The learned Tribunal accepted the petition¬er’s contention and held that the final order could not have been passed by the Disciplinary authority without the President’s sanction. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal vacated the final order passed by the Disciplinary authority and directed him to Proceed afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Presi¬dent. The petitioner thereafter filed this case challenging such direction passed by the Tribunal. While the Disciplinary Proceed¬ing was pending, the Railway Board took several factors into consideration and was pleased to drop the Departmental Proceeding which was pending against the petitioner, but communicated their ‘displeasure’ to the petitioner. We are at a loss to understand as to how communication of displeasure will work out hardship to the petitioner. By such ‘displeasure’ there has been no monetary loss to him. 4. We are at a loss to understand as to how communication of displeasure will work out hardship to the petitioner. By such ‘displeasure’ there has been no monetary loss to him. 4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while winding up his argument has advanced a plea that the Re¬spondent No.1 should pay interest for retention of the amount. We cannot, however, direct the Respondent No.1 to award interest inasmuch as the petitioner was not exonerated from the charges, but the proceeding was dropped. Therefore, Respondent No.1 cannot be shaddled to pay interest. But, if there are other claims, they are directed to release the same, if not already released, within two months from date. 5. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.