- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against common order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby Original Applications Nos. 56/2011 and 62/2011 challenging the charge-sheets dated 4th February, 2011 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1965 have been dismissed. The respondents served two charge-sheets dated 4th February, 2011 upon the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1965. Both the charge-sheets were challenged by petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground of malafides, which were alleged against late Shri S.N. Joshi posted as Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Udaipur Division Udaipur. During the pendency of the Original Applications, respondent No.5 Shri S.N. Joshi retired. The Tribunal vide its impugned order, while rejecting both the Original Applications, gave liberty to present Disciplinary Authority of the applicant to apply its mind once again, and if necessary, either continue with both the proposed disciplinary enquiries or to withdraw the charge memos issued earlier and frame them afresh , and conduct a proper disciplinary enquiry against the applicant as per rules. Para 24 of the judgment of the Tribunal reads as under:- "Bowing down before the wisdom laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra), and the two other cases cited in para 21 and 22 above, I consider that it will be improper for this Tribunal to interfere with the process of conduct of disciplinary enquiry, initiated against the applicant of these two OAs by the department concerned. The Private Respondent/respondent No.5 has already retired on superannuation, and, therefore, the hint or whiff/smell of mala fide, which could have been perhaps smelt in the impugned Show Cause Notices, no longer survives. Therefore, both the OAs are rejected and the present Disciplinary Authority of the applicant will be at liberty to apply his mind once again, and, if necessary, either continue with both the proposed disciplinary enquiries, or to withdraw the charge memos issued earlier, and frame them afresh, and conduct a proper disciplinary enquiry against the applicant as per rules, if he arrives at such a conclusion in his quasi-judicial capacity, after re-appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case."
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for petitioner is that after decision of the Tribunal and during pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioner gave a representation dated 22nd October, 2012 (Annex.9) to the respondents with a prayer for holding a detailed enquiry into the allegations. The said representation was considered petitioner was informed vide letter dated 5th December, 2012 and that documents have been allowed to be perused on 15th October, 2012, therefore, demand of holding detailed enquiry can not be accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 10th December, 2012. The said representation is said to be pending with the respondents.;