RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Superannuation dated 31. 10. 2003 passed by the Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra region Agra- respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that the age of retirement of Bulknizer, i. e. , the post on which he was working is 60 years and he has been prematurely retired after attaining the age of 58 years. ( 4 ) IT appears that it is not a simple ease of premature retirement. The background of the case is, therefore, necessary to be given for appreciating the controversy between the parties. ( 5 ) IT appears from record that the workman had joined the U. P. Roadways at ( 6 ) AGRA in 1966 as a Cleaner and was promoted to the post of Bulknizer in 1979. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 1. 7. 1986 after holding domestic enquiry in charges of theft of Ball Bearings, rims etc. , of the vehicle from the workshop. Aggrieved by the order or dismissal Dated 1. 7. 1986, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 7. 8. 1987. The petitioner then preferred claim petition No. 425/v71987 before the State Public services Tribunal, Lucknow which was allowed quashing the order of dismissal vide judgment and order dated 11. 7. 1995 on the ground that his services had been arbitrarily terminated by the impugned non-speaking order. The order of dismissal from service was also held to be illegal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given full opportunity of hearing and no show cause notice was issued to him. ( 7 ) AUGREVED by the judgment and order of the tribunal, the U. P. State Road Transport corporation. Agra Region, Agra filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31208 of 1995 challenging the said order. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Tribunal dated 11. 7. 1995 and held as under : It is settled legal proposition that the disciplinary authority, cannot take into consideration any material while passing the order of punishment on the basis of which the charge sheet; has not been served on the delinquent employee. 7. 1995 and held as under : It is settled legal proposition that the disciplinary authority, cannot take into consideration any material while passing the order of punishment on the basis of which the charge sheet; has not been served on the delinquent employee. Therefore, to that extent the order of disciplinary authority cannot be held to be bad. However, the question does arise as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the charge of committing theft stood proved against the said employee, even if the past conduct of the respondent-employee had not been taken into consideration, the disciplinary authority could have imposed any punishment lesser than dismissal which was actually imposed by the said authority when the charge of embezzlement stands proved, no punishment other than dismissal can be awarded. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation bahadurearh v. Krishnan Bihari and Ors. ;, 1996 III AD (SC)34 , air 1996 SC 1249 , [ 1996 (73)FLR 1429 ], JT 1996 (3)SC 96, 1996 Lablc 1056, (1996)2 mlj 136 (SC), 1996 (2)SCALE 698 , (1996)2 SCC 714 , [1996]2 SCR 827, 1996 (1)UJ 799 (SC), (1996)3 UPLBEC 1684 ; U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vasu Deo chaudhary and Anr. , (1997)11 SCC 370 : Janatha Bazar South kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. , and Ors. v. Secretary Suhukiui noukarura Sanjihaha and Ors. , AIR 2000 SC 3129 , [ 2000 (87)FLR 483 ], JT 2000 (10)SC 589, (2000)II LLJ 1395 SC, 2000 (6)SCALE 446 , (2000)7 scc 517 , [2000] Supp3 SCR 367 ; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. S. Hullikam, AIR 2001 SC 930 , [2001 (88) FLR 912], JT 2001 (2)SC 72, (2001)I LLJ 725 SC, (2001)2 MLJ7 (SC), 2001 (1)SCALE 373 , (2001)1 UPLBEC 829 and reewnal Manager RSRTC v. Ghanshvam Sharma, [2002 (92)FLR12 ], JT 2001 (10)SC 12, (2002)I LLJ 234 SC, (2002)10 SCC 330, the Division Bench held that: thus, it is not the quantum involved in embezzlement but it is the essence of mens rea involved therein which is a determining factor for imposing the punishment. In a ease of this nature no punishment other than dismissal from service could be imposed. In view of the above, law does not permit to impose punishment other than dismissal. In a ease of this nature no punishment other than dismissal from service could be imposed. In view of the above, law does not permit to impose punishment other than dismissal. Even if the conduct of the respondent-employee had not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, it could not have changed the circumstances and tilt the balance in favour of the delinquent employee. The Tribunal has been too technical while considering the matter, and in view of the above, the judgment and Order dated 11/7/1995 of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is accordingly set aside. Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Learned Tribunal dated 11/7/1995 is hereby set aside. Sri V. K. Rai appears for the respondent-employee. Dt. 1. 12. 2005 chauhan, JGupta, J. Sd/-Hon. B. S. Sd/- Hon. Dilip ( 9 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had BEEN reinstated in service in view of the order of the tribunal dated 11/7/1995 and he had been working and was superannuated vide the impugned order. The order of dismissal having been upheld by this court, the petitioner stands dismissed from service w. e. f 1/7/1986. The petitioner has already worked in the Corporation, as a bonus, even after his dismissal from service by virtue of an order passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the petition. As he stands dismissed from service w. e. f. 1/7/1986, question of his premature superannuation does not arise. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. . .