JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.10.2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, passed in O.A. No. 124 of 2008 and the order dated 03.02.2010 of the same Tribunal passed in R.A. No. 01 ©f 2010, the order bearing No. 1015/SCD/52/EICON, dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure-10), posting/transfer order No. 1142/1285/E1C, dated 14.04.2003 (Annexure-12), movement order dated 05.05.2003 (Anexure-13), charge sheet No. 77551/28/GE(I) (P) TEL/49/EI Con, dated 15.10.2003, (Annexure-16), inquiry report forwarded vide memorandum No. 77551/28/103/EI Con, dated 24.05.2004 (Annexure-18), the order No. 131205/302/221/Engrs/El Con, dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure-20) imposing penalty of compulsory retirement upon the writ petitioner and the appellate order bearing No. 78655/1379/2006/E ID, dated 16.08.2007, (Anneure-22), and praying for issuance of appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows; In 1997, the petitioner who was UDC in the office of AGE(I) Rangapahar was transferred to GE (P)(1) Agartala by order dated 29.08.1997 of the respondent No. 2 and by memorandum dated 05.04.1999 of the respondent No. 4 he was directed to move to his new place of positing. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the same order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati by filing O.A. No. 228/1999. The learned Tribunal on 04.08.1999 passed an interim order staying the operation of the said order of transfer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's posting was changed from Agartala to Teliamura on 4.3.2000. The learned Tribunal disposed the O.A. No. 228/1999 on 08.11.2000. The operative portion of the order is given here below:- "In view of the position indicated above, I am of the view the ends of justice will be met if a direction is issued on the applicant to make a fresh representation for compassionate posting through proper channel within two weeks from today and when such application is made authority concerned shall consider the same and pass necessary order in the light of the existing policy. Till the aforementioned exercise is completed, Interim Orders dated 4.8.99 and 22.9.99 keeping abeyance the order dated 5.4.99 and 9.4.39 shall continue. The respondents shall take necessary steps for payment of the salary of the applicant." The application is disposed of to the extent indicated above. Till the aforementioned exercise is completed, Interim Orders dated 4.8.99 and 22.9.99 keeping abeyance the order dated 5.4.99 and 9.4.39 shall continue. The respondents shall take necessary steps for payment of the salary of the applicant." The application is disposed of to the extent indicated above. There shall, however be no order as to costs." 2. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the competent authority on 02.11.2002 but the request of the petitioner was not granted. However, he was directed to re-join duty at HQ 137 Works Engineering C/O. 99 APO. In the meantime, the respondents filed a writ petition against the order of the Tribunal and the same was registered as W.P.(C) No. 6520/2000. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2000. Not satisfied, the respondents filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was numbered as 9017/2001. On 07.01.2002, the same was also dismissed. Pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2002, the petitioner reported for duty at HQ 137 Works Engineering C/0/99APO on 06.11.2002. But soon thereafter, vide order dated 08.11.2002, he was once again transferred to GE (P)(1) Teliamura. However, the same order was cancelled on 13.12.2002. But on 14.04.2003 the transfer order was once again revived. Since then the fight between the petitioner and the respondent started. The petitioner did not go and join his place of posting at Teliamura Tripura as per the transfer order, therefore, he was charged under memorandum dated 15.10.2003 alleging disobedience and insubordination. The petitioner did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding, therefore, enquiry was conducted ex parte and after report of the same was submitted, he was given compulsory retirement vide order No. 131205/3021/221/Engrs/EIC OM: dated 31.1.06 issued by the CE Headquarter Eastern Command, Fort William, Calcutta. The same is reproduced herein below:- "Chief Engineer, HQ Eastern Command Fort William Kolkotta-21 131205/302/221/Engrs/El Con 31.01.2006 Order 1. Whereas disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) Rule 1965 were initiated against MES-243387 Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC vide Chief Engineer Shillong Zone Memorandum No. 77551/28/GE(1)(P)/TE-/49/El Con dated 15 Oct 2003 for the following lapses. 2. The same is reproduced herein below:- "Chief Engineer, HQ Eastern Command Fort William Kolkotta-21 131205/302/221/Engrs/El Con 31.01.2006 Order 1. Whereas disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) Rule 1965 were initiated against MES-243387 Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC vide Chief Engineer Shillong Zone Memorandum No. 77551/28/GE(1)(P)/TE-/49/El Con dated 15 Oct 2003 for the following lapses. 2. Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC while serving in HQ 137 Wks Engrs was posted to GE (1)(P) Teliamura vide HQ CEEC Kolkata posting order No. 131322/2/7B/30/Engrs/EIC (1) dated 30 Oct 02 and was SOS from HQ 137 Wks Engrs wef 03 May 03 (AN) vide HQ 137 Wks Engrs movement order No. U43/1285/EIC(1) dt. 14 April 03. He has not reported to GE(1)(P) Teliamura for duty and has remained absent from duty till dated without any authority inspite of several directions. 3. And whereas the said Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC has denied the charge levelled against him vide his reply dated 24 Nov 03. 4. And whereas on denial of charge by Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide CE Shillong Zone orders No. 77551/28/72 El Condt 05 Dec 03 and 77551/28/73/E1 Con dt. 05 Dec 03 respectively to inquire into the charge levelled against him. 5. And whereas Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC has neither participated physically nor submitted any written statement in the inquiry from beginning to end. despite instructions issued to him to attend the inquiry. Finally, the inquiry was concluded ex parte. On the basis of documentary evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer, charge framed against said Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC is proved. 6. And whereas a copy of Inquiry Report was served upon the CO vide CE Shillong Zone memorandum No. 77551/28.103/E Con dt 24 May 2004 asking his representation, if any on the findings of the Inquiry Report. In reply the CO vide his letter dated 24 June 04 has brought out matters mainly pertaining to the period prior to his absence from duty which has no relevance with the findings of Inquiry Report and did not furnish convincing reply to the charge levelled against him and proved in the inquiry report. 7. In reply the CO vide his letter dated 24 June 04 has brought out matters mainly pertaining to the period prior to his absence from duty which has no relevance with the findings of Inquiry Report and did not furnish convincing reply to the charge levelled against him and proved in the inquiry report. 7. And whereas gist of Inquiry Report and the final notice has been published in the Newspaper asking the CO to submit representation specifically on Inquiry Report and report for duty within 10 days from the date of the publication of the said notice but the CO has neither submitted any representation specifically on the findings of the Inquiry Report proving his disobedience or movement order dated 14 April 03 issued by the HQ 137 Wks Engrs nor has reported for duty to GE (1)(P) Teliamura till date. 8. And whereas after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the lapses as mentioned in the memorandum of charge have been proved, the undersigned is fully satisfied that the end of justice will be met if penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" from service is imposed on Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC. 9. Now, therefore, I. the undersigned being the competent disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers conferred upon me, under the provisions of CCS (CC &A) Rules 1965, hereby impose the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" from service on MES-243387 Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC with immediate effect with pension and gratuity as per CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. (B. Thambiah) Maj. Gen Chief Engineer" To, MES-243387 Shri Shankar Chandra Deb, UDC Through Chief Engineer Shillong Zone Spread Eagle Falls Shillong-793011 ( Meghalaya ) Copy to, Chief Engineer Shillong Zone Spread Eagle Falls Shillong-793011 (Meghalaya)" 3. After the above stated order was issued, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Engineer-in-Chief Branch, Integrated HQs of MoD (Army), Kashmir House. The appeal was disposed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.8.2007. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below:- "(a) 05 Apr 99 to 03 Aug 99 i.e. 121 days. This period be treated as EOL as the individual did not report for duty inspite of repeated persuasion. (b) 04 Aug 99 to 26 Mar 2001 i.e. 235 days. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below:- "(a) 05 Apr 99 to 03 Aug 99 i.e. 121 days. This period be treated as EOL as the individual did not report for duty inspite of repeated persuasion. (b) 04 Aug 99 to 26 Mar 2001 i.e. 235 days. Hon'ble CAT Guwahati passed an Interim Order on 04 Aug 99 to hold back the Move Order till disposal of the representation of the individual for compassionate ground posting. The disposal of the representation was finally communicated to the individual on 26 Mar 2001. Hence this period be treated as "On Duty". (c) 27 Mar 2001 to 05 Nov 2002 i.e. 589 days. This period be regularized as leave due and admissible. (e) 04 May 2003 to 31 Jan 2006 i.e. 1004 days. This period be regularized by granting HPL admissible and balance be treated as EOL not counted against qualifying service towards pension." 4. Not being satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati by filing Original Application No. 124/2008. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties disposed the appeal vide order dated 26/10/2009. The operative portion of the order is given here below:- "Original Application No. 124 of 2008 Date of Order: This the 26th day of October 2009. 6. The questions raised, which require consideration are two fold: i) Whether there exists any scope for judicial review of the disciplinary proceedings, and ii) Whether period of absence as regularized and detailed by the Appellate order dated 16.08.2007 requires any modification or not. 7. As far as the first issue is concerned, law on the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is well settled. In Union of India and another v. B.C. Chaturvedi, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as long as principles of natural justice has been followed and delinquent given reasonable opportunity, Courts and Tribunals will not interfere in the decision taken and conclusions arrived at, unless the applicant establishes violation of the rules of natural justice and was not afforded due and reasonable opportunity. 8. 8. On examination of the matter, in our considered view, in the given facts and circumstances when applicant has himself had chosen to remain away from the enquiry proceedings and did not participate therein, despite being given all reasonable opportunity by the authority concerned, he cannot at this belated stage be allowed to contend that there was serious violation of principles of natural Justice and that he was not afforded due opportunity. The very fact that the penalty order passed is only of compulsory retirement and not some other penalty which could have deprived him of his pension and other benefits, it cannot be contended that penalty is harsh and disproportionate and not commensurate with the charges leveled and established against him in the departmental enquiry. As far as treatment of his absence as leave or certain other nature is concerned, we may note that direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 228/1999, wherein he challenged the transfer order, had been specific as it reiterated that interim order passed in said proceedings would continue till disposal of his representation. It was observed that till the exercise of consideration of his representation is completed, the interim order shall continue. The exercise undertaken pursuant to said order and direction had come to an end on 02.11.2002 when the respondents considered and rejected his appeal for compassionate posting. One such are the hard facts, period from 04.08.1999 (when the interim order was passed) till 26.03.2001 cannot be termed or treated as EOL. It will have to be treated as 'on duty', as observed by the Appellate Authority. We may note that vide page 8 of said order the Appellate Authority has in specific observed and concluded that for period from 31.03.1999 to 04.11.2002 he would be entitled to full pay and allowances. Once this is the specific and unambiguous stand there cannot be any reason and justification to modify or change its stand, detrimental to the applicant. Thus, though we uphold the penalty of compulsory retirement as approved by the Appellate Authority on 16.08.2007, but we do not approve the treatment of period of regularization in the manner as concluded by the Appellate Authority. To that extent the order of Appellate Authority is set aside and quashed. We direct said authority to treat the period from 3.03.1999 to 05.11.2002 as on duty for all practical purposes. To that extent the order of Appellate Authority is set aside and quashed. We direct said authority to treat the period from 3.03.1999 to 05.11.2002 as on duty for all practical purposes. To this extent the applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits. As far as contention of the applicant that he would be entitled to 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations is concerned, normally, a person who has been penalized after the implementation of such recommendations, he would be entitled to all benefits. But, keeping in view the fact that he was not attending the duty during said period, the authority would be at liberty to regulate said period as per rules and law on said subject. 9. Aforesaid direction should be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. O.A. is accordingly disposed of No costs." 5. The petitioner not being satisfied with the judgment and order passed in the above O.A. No. 124 of 2008, filed a review petition being Review Petition No. 01/2010, before the same Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the review petition. The petitioner being aggrieved has come to this Court assailing the two orders and praying as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Yalemsen on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7. The case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel in brief is as follows; (i) That since he was not paid his salary for a long time, he could not attend the enquiry conducted at Tripura Therefore, he was denied the opportunity of being heard. (ii) That though the movement order was issued by the respondent authority for the petitioner to move to his new place of posting no handing over and taking over of charge took place and no advance T. A/D. A was paid to him for his movement to his new place of posting. Since he was not paid his pay and allowances for a long time and no T. A/D. A was given and no handing over and taking over of charge took place he was not in a position to move to his new place of posting. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for non-joining to his new place of posting. Since he was not paid his pay and allowances for a long time and no T. A/D. A was given and no handing over and taking over of charge took place he was not in a position to move to his new place of posting. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for non-joining to his new place of posting. (iii) That the compulsory retirement given to the petitioner is too harsh for the act of commission or omission charged against the petitioner who had rendered, dedicated service for a long time. (iv) That the repeated transfer order issued by the respondents were nothing more than a harassment and discrimination against the petitioner, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who appears on behalf of the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal have considered the petitioner's case minutely and disposed the same based on the reasons which are reasonable, therefore, there is no room for interference. 9. Handing over and taking over of charge are mere formalities which the petitioner could have completed on his own initiative without involvement of the higher authorities. As the transfer order was already issued and not only that but movement order was also issued, it was for the petitioner to complete the formalities and leave the station to join his new place of positing as per the rule of his service. He cannot blame others specially the higher authorities for non-completion of such formalities. As for the advance T. A/D. A., it is not compulsory that a Government servant, before he moves to his new place of posting, must get the same first. That cannot be a condition precedent for a Government servant to move to his new place of posting. For the exigency of the service a Government servant may have to move immediately and claim such allowances later. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he could not go to his new place of posting as he was not given his pay and allowances and T. A/D.A. in advance, and as there was no handing over and taking over of charge appears to be only a lame excuse. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he could not go to his new place of posting as he was not given his pay and allowances and T. A/D.A. in advance, and as there was no handing over and taking over of charge appears to be only a lame excuse. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner's representation for cancellation of his earlier transfer order to retain him at Rangapahar C/O. 99 APO, on compassionate ground having been considered and declined by the competent authority by giving reasons thereof, the same cannot be re-opened under judicial review unless sufficient facts and circumstances are projected to suggest that there was mala fide and arbitrariness on the part of the authorities while issuing such order. In this case, the petitioner have not shown any materials, if any, which would show the same. 10. Government servants must move from place to place as and when their service is required. They should make themselves available any time when and where their service is required. Transfer is an incident of service, therefore, a Government servant must always be ready to move. As such, when the petitioner did not move from his place of posting to a new place of positing as per the order issued by the competent authority he has not only shown lack of devotion to duty but has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. Besides, the petitioner did not take the opportunity given to him to prove his innocence of the charge leveled against him. This also shows his scant regard or respect for the authority and the rules of the service. On perusal of the orders issued by the authority, it appears that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. When such opportunity has not been taken, he cannot make it up in the later stages by filing petitions before Tribunal and Courts. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal. 11. On the quantum of the punishment, a compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. Therefore, principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal. 11. On the quantum of the punishment, a compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. Therefore, principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. Since the nature of the function is not quasi-judicial in nature and because the action has to be taken on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, there is no room for importing the audi alteram partem rule of the natural justice in such a case. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. J.N. Sinha reported in (1970) 2 SCC 458 and the same was affirmed in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada &Anr. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 . The same still holds the field, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's case that he was not given adequate opportunity of being heard as he could not got, to Tripura to face the enquiry. In such order of compulsory retirement, the scope of judicial review is open only on the ground on mala fides, arbitrariness and perversity. On that also, the petitioner has miserably failed to show any material facts or circumstances from which one can draw the conclusion that the compulsory retirement was given to him due to such reasons. In fact, considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents have shown enough sympathy to the petitioner by giving him compulsory retirement. Further, we are also of the view that the judgment and order of the learned CAT has considered all the aspects and has left no room for interference. As such, we find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.