Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Challenging the order, dated 04.11.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.658 of 2009, in rejecting the prayer sought for by the applicant, who is the writ petitioner, to set aside the order, dated 18.01.2008 dismissing him from service and also the order dated 22.12.2008 rejecting the appeal filed by him on the ground of delay, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who joined in the Postal Department as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in the year 1974, that he was entrusted with the work of procuring Rural Postal Life Insurance from public in addition to his duties and while so, a memo, dated 22.03.2005, was issued to him alleging that he has received premiums, but failed to credit the same to an extent of Rs.935/-. According to the petitioner, due to inadvertent oversight, the amount was missed out and he had enquired with his higher officials and also paid the said amount with interest, on receipt of which, the second respondent has revoked his suspension order. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter, he was placed under off duty from 19.12.2006 and issued charge memo on 31.01.2007, against which, the petitioner filed M.A.No.119 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 25.07.2007 and aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred W.P.No.37783 of 2007 before the High Court and the same was also dismissed as per order dated 18.01.2008. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the meantime, the second respondent dismissed him from service, by order dated 18.01.2008 and due to illness, he could not file appeal against the said order within time and thereafter, he has preferred an application to condone the delay before the first respondent, who, without considering his case on merits, dismissed the petition for condonation of delay, against which, he filed O.A.No.658 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by holding that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by holding that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. On going through the entire materials placed on record, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition, as the appeal, which was filed against the order of termination of the petitioner from service, was rejected on the ground of unexplained delay in filing the appeal and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the original application, which needs no interference. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.