JUDGEMENT S. K. Katriar, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed against the order dated 22.3.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.11848 of 1996 (Suresh Prasad vs. The Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation and Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed with certain conditions. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. 2. This appeal has had a chequered history. The petitioner joined the services of the Corporation as a Class-I Officer on 27.4.1976, was at the relevant point of time posted as Accounts Officer in Patna, and had undertaken tours to Purnea and Navgachia. He submitted his T. A. bill for Rs.486.23p on the basis of his entitlement to travel by First Class train journey. It appears that the authorities found that he had undertaken the journey by road, and had instead charged the travelling allowance as per his entitlement of train journey. His T. A. bill was not passed and paid. and was instead visited with the charge-sheet dated 8.4.1980. He was removed from service by order dated 10.6.1983. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C. W. J. C. No.2888 of 1983 (Suresh Prasad vs. The Bihar State Warehousing Corporation and Ors), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.9.1983. The petitioner thereafter preferred C. W. J. C. No.6002 of 1995, stating therein that his departmental appeal was still pending, and may be directed to be disposed of on merits. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28.11.1995, passed in the presence of learned counsel for both the sides, whereby the learned appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks. The Board of Directors of the Corporation rejected the appeal by his order dated 5.10.1996, mainly on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. 3. The order of the learned appellate authority was challenged by preferring C. W. J. C. No.11848 of 1996. The same was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 30.10.1997, leading to L. P. A. no.1463 of 1997. 3. The order of the learned appellate authority was challenged by preferring C. W. J. C. No.11848 of 1996. The same was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 30.10.1997, leading to L. P. A. no.1463 of 1997. The appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.11.2006, whereby the order dated 30.10.1997, was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge for a fresh consideration of the entire matter, as if he were in the twin capacity of the appellate authority in the departmental proceeding as well as in exercise of writ jurisdiction. On a reconsideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge has allowed C. W. J. C. No.11848 of 1996, and has held that the allegation was with respect to a small T. A. bill of Rs.486.23p, was never passed and paid to the petitioner, and the punishment is excessive and disproportionate to the charge. The petitioner has in the meanwhile superannuated from service on 6.3.2001. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary but shall be entitled to his post-retirement benefits with further directions. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereinbelow: that being the settled legal position this court is of the opinion that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner contained in Annexure-5 as well as the order passed in appeal which is Annexure-14 deserves to be interfered with and the same are quashed. Since the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2001 in terms of his age at the time of joining service, he cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service. But looking at the fact that the action of the respondent Corporation has been held to be not only illegal but in violation of the settled principles of law, this court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has reached 58 years on 6.3.2001 he cannot be reinstated in service. Further since he has not worked since 1983 direction for payment of salary too cannot be granted to him but by virtue of the order of dismissal being set aside the petitioner would be deemed to have continued in service and would be deemed to have retired. Further since he has not worked since 1983 direction for payment of salary too cannot be granted to him but by virtue of the order of dismissal being set aside the petitioner would be deemed to have continued in service and would be deemed to have retired. The respondent Corporation is directed to consider this period of dismissal from 1983 till his date of retirement to be in service and would be entitled to retiral benefits. They shall work out his retiral dues by virtue of this order as if he was never discharged from service. This Court further directs that a cost of Rs.10,000/- be awarded as compensation against the respondents to be paid to the petitioner. It is a token sum keeping in consideration that the petitioner has lost his entire life and livelihood because of an arbitrary and illegal decision taken against him by the Corporation. The above exercise should be carried out within three months and petitioner shall be paid his dues within the same time. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We feel very unhappy that scanty materials have been placed before us attributable to both sides, as a result of which we are really unable to assess the situation accurately. It appears to us on the face of it that much can be said on both sides. On the one hand, the learned Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner had submitted T. A. bill for an amount of Rs.486.23p. , but the same was never passed and paid to him. The amount is small. The mode and manner of journey is doubted. It appears that petitioner perhaps had travelled by road, whereas he claimed as per his entitlements of train journey. The learned inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not hold that the journey had not been undertaken. If an erroneous bill is submitted but the error is detected before it is passed and paid, it should have been returned for correction. Instead charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. On the other hand, it can well be stated that the petitioner had done all that he could do to claim the T. A. bill at the rate he should not have claimed. He was in the capacity of the Account Officer required to check his own bills. Instead charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. On the other hand, it can well be stated that the petitioner had done all that he could do to claim the T. A. bill at the rate he should not have claimed. He was in the capacity of the Account Officer required to check his own bills. It was by chance detected at the hands of someone else. In this background, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is a case of excessive and disproportionate punishment. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, substituted the punishment of removal from service by setting aside the order of payment of post-retirement benefits on notional basis, without payment of arrears of salary, and costs of Rs.10,000/-. He was dismissed from service on 10.6.1983 ,and would have reached his superannuation on 6.3.2001. We agree with the equitable considerations which weighed with the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed.