ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. The petitioner, Union of India through the Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi, is aggrieved by the order dated 26th May 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 28 of 2013(R), whereby, the O.A. filed by the sole respondent, who is a retired Sub-Postmaster, was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, quashing the Memo of charges dated 30.1.2008 served upon the sole respondent and dropping the departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner Union of India was also directed to make the payment of entire retiral dues of the applicant, i.e., the sole respondent herein, along with all consequential benefits with statutory interest @ 8%, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ communication of the copy of the order. Against the said order, the Union of India also filed a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit, Bench, Ranchi, being R.A./051/00005/2015, which was also dismissed by the order dated 17.12.7015. 3. The facts of this case, as revealed from the order dated 26th May 2005, passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2013(R), lie in a short compass. The sole respondent at the relevant time, was working as Sub-Postmaster at Telaiyadam S.O. On 21.11.2003 he was served with a letter dated 21.11.2003, whereby, he was required to meet the Director of Postal Services at Divisional Office on 22.11.2003, but the sole respondent was not allowed to meet the Director of Postal Services and he was handed over to the police custody of Town P.S., Hazaribagh, without assigning any reason. The police took the sole respondent in custody and the FIR was lodged by the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Posts) North Sub-Division, Hazaribagh, on 22.11.2003 at Domchanh, O.P., which was registered as P.S. Case No. 409 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003, according to which there was allegation against the sole respondent that he sanctioned the final closure of 16 TD Accounts opened at Taranakha B.O., without obtaining the respective pass books on the basis of the withdrawals allegedly received by hand through BPM. Since the sole respondent was taken into custody on 22.11.2003, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 22.11.2003. Since the sole respondent was taken into custody on 22.11.2003, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 22.11.2003. Though he was released from custody on 22.9.2004, but he remained under suspension for a period of about 1-1/2 years, which was revoked by order dated 18.1.2006 and he was again posted as Postal Assistant, Ramgarh Cantt., Head Post Office, where he served till his retirement on 31.1.2008. 4. On 31.1.2008, i.e., on the date of his retirement, the sole respondent was served with memo of charges dated 30.1.2008, which were for the same offence, for which the police case was instituted against him. The respondent, however, submitted himself to the departmental proceeding, but the departmental proceedings continued even till the date of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26th May 2016, i.e., even after the lapse of more than seven years. In the meantime, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by the judgment dated 8.5.2012. Thereafter, he made representations on 13.8.2012 followed by reminders dated 31.8.2012, 24.9.2012 and 6.8.2012, for regularization of the period of suspension from 22.11.2003 to 2.2.2006, to treat him to be on duty for all purposes and also requested to drop the departmental proceeding initiated on 30.1.2008, but no action was taken thereon. The sole respondent was thus, forced to move the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, in O.A. No. 28 of 2013(R), which upon adjudication was disposed of by quashing the Charge Memo dated 30.1.2008 and directing the concerned authority, i.e., the petitioner herein, to drop the departmental proceeding against the sole respondent and the petitioner was also directed to make the payment of the retiral dues of the respondent along with all consequential benefits with statutory interest @ 8% within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the order. The review petition against the order filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Union of India has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the departmental proceeding is still continuing in accordance with law and it is submitted that the Inquiry Officer had also submitted his report, against which, the sole respondent had also given his representation. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts of this case, the departmental proceeding ought not to have been quashed against the sole respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the sale respondent on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the memo of charges were malafidely served upon the sole respondent on the date of his retirement on 31.1.2008, even though, the allegations related to the period prior to the year 2003. It is further submitted that the sole respondent presented himself to the departmental proceeding, but the departmental proceeding was not culminated and in the meantime, in the criminal case, the sole respondent was acquitted. Thereafter, the respondent gave representations for his due salary during the period of suspension and for dropping the departmental proceeding, which were not done, forced by which, the sole respondent was compelled to take the shelter of Central Administrative Tribunal, where ultimately, he got justice. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts of this case, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, we find that the male fide is writ large in the facts of this case. Admittedly, the misconduct, if any, was for the period prior to the year 2003, but the petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not initiate any departmental proceeding against the respondent till the date of his retirement. Though the respondent was put under suspension for some period, and a criminal case was also lodged, but his suspension was revoked and he was given a posting, on which, he served till his retirement. It was only on the date of his retirement, the respondent was served with the memo of charges. The memo of charges has been brought on record as Annexure-5, which clearly shows that the misconduct, if any, related to the period from the year 1992 to 1994 and from 1998 to 13.8.2003. There appears to be no cogent explanation for sitting tight over the matter and to serve the memo of charges only on the date of retirement, i.e., on 31.1.2008. 8. There appears to be no cogent explanation for sitting tight over the matter and to serve the memo of charges only on the date of retirement, i.e., on 31.1.2008. 8. As such, we are of the considered view in the facts of this case that the serving of the memo of charges on the date of retirement was itself malafide and arbitrary and could not be sustained in the eyes of law, and so the entire departmental proceeding. The fact remains that the respondent presented himself to the departmental proceeding, but the same was kept pending for an unduly long period of more than seven years, till the same was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the meantime the respondent was also acquitted of the criminal charges in the year 2012. In the facts of this case we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 26th May, 2015 and 17th December, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the O.A. No. 28 of 2013(R), as well as in the review petition being R.A./051/00005/2015 respectively, quashing the memo of charges, dropping the departmental proceedings and directing for making the payment of entire retiral dues of the respondent with statutory interest. 9. We find from the impugned orders that the Central Administrative Tribunal has missed one thing, i.e., the payment of balance of salary of the sole respondent for the period of his suspension, i.e., from 22.11.2003 to 18.1.2006 (or 2.2.2006 as the case may be), which we hereby, direct that the same shall also be paid to the sole respondent with statutory interest as allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, along with his other dues. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed with the direction as above. Consequently, the I.A. also stands dismissed.