R. Balasubramanian, J.

1. In our order we will refer the parties to the writ petitions as employer and employee respectively for the purpose of convenience. The employee went before the Tribunal in O.A. Nos: 193 of 2002 and 194 of 2002, the former one to quash the charge memo dated 26.12.2000 and the later one to promote him to the next higher post. The Tribunal sustained the points put forward by the employee. Therefore, the employer is before this Court in these two writ petitions.

2. The following facts are not in dispute:

“On 17.3.1992, the employee was served with a charge memo; he submitted his explanation in March 1992 itself; the employee challenged the validity of the charge memo by filing O.A. No: 689 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal; on 7.10.1994 the original application was dismissed meaning thereby the validity of the charge memo was upheld; the enquiring authority sent his proceedings dated 20.3.1997 returning the papers to the employer; on 26.12.2000, the employer issued the second charge memo contemplating fresh enquiry into the charges”.

At that stage only the employee went before the Tribunal again. The Tribunal found that the content