THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2900 OF 2010 ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No.146 of 2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), Hyderabad Bench and to quash order dated 24.08.2007 passed in the said O.A. 2. The first respondent herein joined the Office of the Director of Postal Accounts-fourth petitioner as Lower Division Clerk on 24.01.1978. While working as Senior Accountant, he was issued charge memo dated 29.05.1991 on the allegation that he participated in a demonstration. After conducting enquiry, the third petitioner vide proceedings dated 15.05.1996 imposed on the first respondent penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.1800/- to Rs.1750/- for a period of one year with a further direction that the first respondent would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the second petitioner, who confirmed the punishment imposed by the third petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a revision before the Member (Personnel) of the Postal Board, who rejected the said revision upholding the orders of the second and third petitioners. Thereafter, challenging the said order, the first respondent filed O.A.No.255 of 1999 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of, by order dated 14.03.2000, remitting the matter back to the revisionary authority with a direction that final decision should be taken by the Member within a period of two months. The revisionary authority reviewed the matter and by order dated 31.07.2000, remitted the matter back to the fourth petitioner for initiating fresh proceedings against the first respondent. Thereafter, the fourth petitioner issued fresh charge memo dated 25.09.2006 against the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent again approached the Tribunal to quash charge memo dated 25.09.2006 by filing the present O.A. i.e, O.A.No.146 of 2007 on the ground that the said charge memo was issued on the same charge dated 29.05.1991, which could not reach its logical end, and also on the further ground that there is unjustifiable delay of six years in issuing the fresh charge memo. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and also on considering the material before it, held that there is inordinate delay of six years, as contended by the first respondent, in issuing the fresh charge memo after the matter was remitted to the fourth petitioner by the revisionary authority and as such the charge memo is not maintainable and accordingly set aside the charge memo by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the material available on record. 5. In the earlier O.A. i.e., O.A.No.255 of 1999 filed by the first respondent, the Tribunal, by order dated 14.03.2000, remitted the matter back to the revisionary authority directing it to take a final decision in the matter within two months. Accordingly, the revisionary authority passed order dated 31.07.2000 remitting the matter back to the competent authority for initiating fresh proceedings against the first respondent as per Rules 14 and 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Thereafter, on 25.09.2006, the competent authority issued the fresh charge memo. Thus, there is delay of six years in issuing the fresh charge memo. For this inordinate delay, it is the explanation of the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before this Court that the delay occurred while taking statements from the retired officials who settled at different places and due to other administrative reasons. We are of the view that this explanation, as also held by the Tribunal, is not at all satisfactory. For the inordinate delay of six years in issuing the fresh charge memo, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the said memo and we do not see any grounds to interfere with the said cogent and convincing finding of the Tribunal. Though the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007, the petitioners have approached this Court in 2010 i.e., after three years. Thus, the delay committed by the petitioners in issuing the fresh charge memo as well as in approaching this Court clearly shows that they are not vigilant. 6. For the above mentioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Dated 16th February, 2010​ ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J vrn