JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ application is to an order dated 6th of December, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 774 of 2012, whereby the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was not interfered with in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 18th/23rd of August, 1994 that while functioning as Head Weighing Clerk on 2nd of January, 1994 at Parasia Weighbridge, he weighed rake of 35 BCN wagons and recorded the gross weight as 2980.7 Metric Ton, whereas the same rake of wagons was reweighed at Andal Weighbridge on 3rd of January, 1994 where the gross weight was found as 3057.08 Metric Ton i.e. 77.1 Metric Ton in excess than the previous weight taken at Parasia. 4. On 5th of January 1994, 34 wagons were reweighed at Andal and excess weight was recorded as compared to the weight recorded at Parasia. The loss of revenue was assessed at Rs. 93,210/- and the same was realised from the concerned party. On the basis of the charge-sheet, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who completed the inquiry proceedings in accordance with the rules. The order of punishment was passed on 22nd of February, 2000 removing the petitioner from Railway service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the ADRM, Dhanbad on 31st of March, 2000 who reduced the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement vide order dated 19th of September, 2000. Further Mercy Appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad. On creation of East Central Railway, Hajipur, a fresh Mercy petition/Revision was filed. Since the Mercy Petition was not decided, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 252 of 2005 which was disposed of with direction to the competent authority to dispose of the Mercy Petition. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority passed order on 19th of October, 2006 rejecting the prayer of the applicant. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No. 647 of 2007, wherein the order of punishment was set aside on 11th of November, 2011 and the matter remitted to Revisional Authority to reconsider the order of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority passed order on 19th of October, 2006 rejecting the prayer of the applicant. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No. 647 of 2007, wherein the order of punishment was set aside on 11th of November, 2011 and the matter remitted to Revisional Authority to reconsider the order of compulsory retirement. It is in pursuance of such direction, the Revisional Authority has passed the impugned order dated 20th of April, 2012 maintaining the order of punishment. 6. The quantum of punishment is beyond juridical review in terms of the power conferred on the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 or by this Court unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. 7. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal in an earlier Original Application filed by the petitioner, the matter of punishment has been examined by the Revisional Authority afresh, wherein the authority has not interfered with the order of punishment. 8. Since the order of punishment is within the judicial discretion of the competent authority, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Revisional Authority and not interfered by the learned Tribunal. 9. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.