ORDER :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The present writ petition bearing No.17755/2025 has been filed by the petitioner - Mahaveer Prasad Vaishnav, aged about 73 years, challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the Original Application No.784/2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘O.A.’) was allowed and the impugned punishment order dated 04.09.2024 was quashed, however, the learned Tribunal remanded the matter back to the respondents to take a decision afresh on the quantum of punishment within a period of three months. The writ petition bearing No. 10837/2025, has been filed by the Union of India, challenging the punishment order dated 04.09.2024 as quashed by the learned Tribunal.

2. Insofar as the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Mahaveer Prasad Vaishnav is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner - Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Postal Department in the year 1971 and was promoted from time to time on various posts by the respondents in recognition of his unblemished service record in the department.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was issued an impugned memorandum of charge-sheet dated 19.05.2015 in respect of a transaction which took place in the department on 28.05.2011. The petitioner was served the charge-sheet under sub-clause(i) of clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1972’).

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2011, and after retirement, he was issued the impugned charge-sheet. He submitted that as per the above mentioned Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972, a charge-sheet can be issued within a period of four years from the date of the alleged incident. In the present case, just nine days before expiry period of four years, the memo of charge- sheet was issued to him by the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report dated 02.08.2019. Learned counsel submitted that the following charges were levelled against the petitioner in the said memorandum of charge-sheet, which read as under:-

ARTICLE-I

“That the said Shri Mahavir Prasad Vaishnaw, retired Postal Asstt., Madanganj-Kishangarh H.O. while working as officiating APM (SB), Madanganj Kishangarh H.O. from 19-11-2010 and onwards allowed/ sanctioned following withdrawal on 28-05- 2011 from Madanganj Kishangarh HO SB account no. 432644 through cheque, whereas no cheque book was issued to the depositor of said amount no.432644.

The said account was silent, which was fraudulently revived by Sh. Pawan kumar Choudhary Postal Asstt on 05-03-2011 and thereafter bogus deposit entries were made in it through data entry module and raised the balance of the account. Said Shri Mahavir Prasad Vaishnaw, retired Postal Asstt. and offg Asstt. Post Master (SB), Madanganj-Kishangarh H.O. passed the above mentioned bogus/fraudulent payment through cheque from the cheque book issued for the another SB account no. 442004 irregularly without carrying out prescribed checks, violating the provision of Rule 33 (3) (b) read with Rule 21 of Appendix I of P.O. SB Manual Volume-I. He also failed to obtain KYC documents from the payee at the time of making above payment, violating the orders contained in SB order no. 18/2010 issued by Ministry of communication and IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi under no. 109-04/2007-SB dated 24-08-2010.

It is therefore, alleged that by doing so said Shri Mahavir Prasad Vaishnaw, retired Postal Asstt. and the then Asstt. Post Master (SB) Madanganj- Kishangarh H.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a govt servant and also failed to take all steps to ensu