JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Ms. A.S. Lodh for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner was serving as an assistant teacher of Kamalghat Class-XII School under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura and he was transferred to Halahali Class-XII school and was released from Kamalghat Class-XII school w.e.f. the afternoon of 01.03.1994. After release he did not join Halahali Class-XII school. Thereafter by a memo dated 24.09.2004 a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him with the charges of his not joining to his place of posting as well as for remaining on un-authorized absence. On receipt of the memorandum of disciplinary proceeding he submitted a reply in writing to the Director of School Education and also prayed for personal hearing and, accordingly, he was heard by the Director of School Education and thereafter by order dated 22.12.2004 the Director of School Education closed the disciplinary proceeding with the observation:- “Having considered so, I order that the entire absence period is to be regularised by applying “DIES-NON” without any break of service and his joining report should be accepted accordingly. Having ordered so, I think this will meet the ends of justice. The proposed proceeding is also hereby dropped.” 3. The petitioner thereafter applied for voluntary retirement in the year 2005 by making an application dated 03.02.2005 but that was not entertained by the Director of School Education on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 20 years of continuous service as required under rule 48A of C.C.S Pension Rules 1972 rules and, therefore, his prayer for voluntary retirement was rejected. 4. The petitioner approached the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.550 of 2010 and that writ petition was dismissed by order dated 15.03.2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 04.08.2011 seeking a review of the order dated 22.12.2004. The Director of School Education by a memorandum dated 03.09.2011 (Annnexure-P/14 to the writ petition) observed that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 04.08.2011 seeking a review of the order dated 22.12.2004. The Director of School Education by a memorandum dated 03.09.2011 (Annnexure-P/14 to the writ petition) observed that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by making a representation (Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition) dated 30.09.2011 and the appellate authority dismissed the representation of the petitioner bymemo dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure-P/16 to the writ petition) with the following observations:- “WHEREAS, Shri Manabendra Chakraborty, A/T, Halhali, H.S. School, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura has filed an appeal dated 30th September, 2011 before the Appellate Authority seeking consideration of quantum penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order No.F.4(1-3194)-DSE/2004 dated 22-12-2004, AND WHEREAS, as per provision of Rule 25 of C.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules, 1965, an appeal shall be submitted by the appellant within the period 45 (forty five) days from the date of receipt of the order, AND WHEREAS, in the instant case the appellant Shri Manabendra Chakraborty, A/T, Halhali H.S. School, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura has filed the appeal petition after expiry of 6(six) years 11(eleven) months and 8(eight) days, which is beyond the prescribed rules, NOW, THEREFORE, the appeal petition dated 30-09-2011 of Shri Manabendra Chakraborty, A/T, Halhali H.S. School, Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura could not be considered and thus liable to be rejected.” 5. Now by filing this writ petition the petitioner challenged that memorandum dated 24.10.2011. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman candidly submitted that while the disciplinary authority passed the order that the period of absence should be regularized, simultaneously, the disciplinary authority cannot say that the period should be treated as 'dies-non' and while that order itself says that the explanation given by the petitioner was accepted the simultaneous order of treating the period as 'dies-non' is inconsistent with the contents of the order and, therefore, the respondents would review the order for fair ends of justice. 7. After going through the pleadings and materials on record I find that the petitioner was un-authorisedly absent from his duties for more than 10 years. Disciplinary proceeding was drawn but after hearing the petitioner, perhaps a most lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority. Long 10 years absence was declared as 'dies-non' without break in service and that appears to be the backbone of the order. The word 'regularization' was mentioned subject to treating the period as 'dies-non'. Disciplinary proceeding was drawn but after hearing the petitioner, perhaps a most lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority. Long 10 years absence was declared as 'dies-non' without break in service and that appears to be the backbone of the order. The word 'regularization' was mentioned subject to treating the period as 'dies-non'. So what is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman to treat the petitioner's service as regularized cannot be accepted. 8. I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by appellate authority and the writ petition, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. However, cost to be borne by the parties.