Pradeep Kant, J.:- This special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.08.2010 passed in Review Petition No.42 of 2001, and the order dated 30.04.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 3363 (S/S) of 1987. 2. The respondent herein, who was the original petitioner, had challenged the order passed by the District Court Martial, whereby he was awarded the sentence (a) to undergo detention for three months, and (b) to be dismissed from service. This order was confirmed by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Central Air Command, Indian Air Force on 7th October, 1986 who, while confirming the order, remitted the period of detention already undergone in prison upto the day of promulgation. 3. The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 30.04.1993, has noted that no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents (appellants herein), although several opportunities were given to file the counter affidavit. On 17th December 1992, it was directed that if no counter affidavit was filed till the next date of hearing, the case would be taken up on the date fixed. Counter affidavit was not filed on that date also. The learned Judge then, on the basis of material on record, proceeded to hold that Charge No.1, which was more serious in comparison to other two charges, was not proved against the delinquent official (respondent herein), and that even prior to the order passed by the District Court Martial, the Commanding Officer had given a report for imposing minor punishment upon the respondent herein. The learned Judge, had also relied on various judgments including the judgment in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal, AIR 1983 SC 454 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the penalty imposed must be commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge, then, observed that, no doubt, highest amount of discipline is expected from an officer engaged in the Armed Forces, and in the instant case, the officer has been found guilty of misbehaving with his superior officer and, therefore, he was not inclined to enter into the merit of the case keeping in view the traditions in the Air Force and the Army. The learned Judge also observed that it is not the function of the Court to appraise the punishment and give its verdict about the quantum of punishment, but if the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court feels that the punishment awarded is not commensurate to the gravity of charges and the punishment is disproportionate in comparison to the gravity of charges, then interference is called for. The learned Judge also noted that the respondent had been in detention for more than a month. The learned Judge, therefore, was pleased to hold that, on the facts of the case, minor punishment was sufficient and, as such, quashed the order dated 13th October, 1986 and directed for reinstatement of the respondent herein. 4. The appellants herein did not prefer any appeal against that order, but after eight long years, preferred an application for recall of order dated 30.04.1993, which was numbered as C.M. Application No. 1488 (W) of 2001. The learned Court, while hearing the said application, by order dated 28.02.2001, held that the application cannot be treated as an application for recall of the order, as the order was passed on merit, and treated the said application as an application for review, which was registered as Review Petition No. 42 of 2001. 5. The learned Court, while hearing Review Petition No. 42 of 2001, has noted in the order dated 17th August, 2010 that on 7th July, 2008, as the learned counsel for the Union of India was not present, the review petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, an application for recall of order dated 7th July, 2008 was filed, which was numbered as C.M. Application No. 87719 of 2008. The Court, vide order dated 25.09.2008, allowed the said application and restored the review petition to its original number. The Court, on 17.02.2009, again dismissed the review petition for want of prosecution, as the learned counsel for the Union of India was not present to press the review petition on the said date also. Thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 17.02.2009 was filed, which was numbered as C.M. Application No. 32073 of 2009. The Court, on 17.02.2009, again dismissed the review petition for want of prosecution, as the learned counsel for the Union of India was not present to press the review petition on the said date also. Thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 17.02.2009 was filed, which was numbered as C.M. Application No. 32073 of 2009. It was set out in the said application that the appellants were not aware of the proceedings of the Court and that they came to know only when the legal notice dated 09.01.2001 for compliance of judgment and order dated 30.04.1993 was received by them. However, vide order dated 17.03.2010 C.M. Application No. 32073 of 2009 was allowed, order dated 17.02.2009 was recalled and the review petition was restored to its original number. However, while allowing the said application, the Court also imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellants. In the meantime, the respondent herein had reached the age of superannuation. It has also been noted that the Warrant Officer, A.K. Singh had recommended for imposition of minor punishment upon the respondent, as Charge No.1, which was more serious in nature, was not found proved. The learned Judge, then, proceeded to hold that no case for review of the order was made out. However, considering that the respondent herein had superannuated, the order of reinstatement was modified with a direction to the appellants herein to pay the post-retiral benefits to the respondent treating him to be in service till the age of superannuation in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. 6. At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Judge was not right in allowing the writ petition and directing for reinstatement of the respondent considering the charges proved against him. It was also submitted that considering the past record of the appellant, the learned Judge ought not to have passed the said order. 7. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it has been submitted that the respondent is really aggrieved by the order passed in review petition, as he has been denied the back wages by the learned Judge deciding the review petition, which could not have been done in exercise of his review jurisdiction. The respondent has, however, chosen not to challenge the same. 8. The respondent has, however, chosen not to challenge the same. 8. We have called on the learned counsel for the appellants to make available the copy of the order passed by the District Court Martial, as also the records including the report of the Court-martial proceedings. The learned counsel contends that the records are not available. Insofar as the order of the District Court Martial dated 13.10.1986 is concerned, on the basis of material available on record, we do not find any reason on the basis of which the punishment was imposed. 9. We have also considered the averments made in the petition as also the reply filed in reply thereto. The respondent, in his petition, has clearly set out that the charges were framed by Warrant Officer R.S. Narula with mala fide reasons and in order to save his own skin, as he himself had done wrong act against his junior (respondent herein). The allegation of using filthy language and insubordination was also denied as false and baseless. The respondent had also pleaded that the witnesses produced by the appellants had clearly stated that the respondent was assaulted by Warrant Officer Narula, which would show that the case of the appellants against the respondent was not established. Various other contentions were raised in the petition. In reply to the writ petition, an affidavit was filed wherein it was set out that on four occasions, the respondent was awarded punishment of detention and admonition for committing various offences. 10. The first issue for our consideration is, whether the learned Judge was right in passing the order while reviewing an order passed by another learned Judge who had allowed the writ petition? In the first instance, the review, as noted, was filed after eight long years. In our opinion, the learned Judge was right in holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record which may warrant rectification in review. The learned Judge also noted the conduct of the appellants herein. Thus, in our opinion, the review petition was rightly dismissed on August 17, 2010. 11. The next issue for our consideration is, whether the order of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with? In our opinion, the question of reviewing an order after eight years, really would not arise considering the normal period of limitation for filing an application of review. 11. The next issue for our consideration is, whether the order of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with? In our opinion, the question of reviewing an order after eight years, really would not arise considering the normal period of limitation for filing an application of review. Even if we assume that the period of limitation will not apply for review of an order passed in the writ petition, the learned Judge had, however, chosen not to interfere with the findings recorded in respect of the guilt of the respondent. Though, there is no material before us to find out as on what basis that finding was confirmed, however, the learned Judge has correctly addressed himself to the test of proportionality of punishment and in the light of the material on record, held that it was disproportionate. 12. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 3053 , wherein the Supreme Court, after considering various judgments including the judgment in Bhagat Ram (supra), was pleased to observe that the Court should not interfere merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate, unless in extreme cases, which on the face, show perversity or irrationality, then there can be a judicial review. In the instant case, the Court itself noted that considering the material on record and the charges, the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the delinquency proved and, interfered with the punishment. There is also no order disclosing the reasons for imposing the punishment. In our opinion, therefore, at this stage, it would not be possible to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. 13. Before parting, we may only add that the respondent has been denied back wages, which he would have been entitled to, consequent to the order of reinstatement. He has since superannuated. Considering that, in our opinion, as the appeal against the impugned order is belated, no case for interference is made out. The impugned orders passed in review petition and in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Considering that, in our opinion, as the appeal against the impugned order is belated, no case for interference is made out. The impugned orders passed in review petition and in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 21.09.2010 AHA (Pradeep Kant, J.) (Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.) C.M. Application No. 97661 of 2010 Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. Grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal are sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.