L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.:––The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') was working as Telecom Technical Assistant at Mehdipatnam in the year, 1998. On 10.7.1998 the Central Bureau of Investigation laid a trap and the respondent was found to have accepted bribe of Rs.500/- for shifting a telephone. Based upon the developments in the trap, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed CC No.5 of 1999 before the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad. The respondent was convicted by the criminal Court through its judgment dated 10.10.2001. Taking that into consideration, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 15.2.2002, dismissing the respondent from service.

2. The respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.1586 of 2001 before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court on 3.4.2008. Taking the same into account, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 18.12.2008, withdrawing the order of removal dated 10.10.2001 and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The benefit of back wages and continuity of services was also extended in the same order. However, an observation was made to the effect that separate disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. Complaining that in spite of the order dated 18.12.2008, he has not been reinstated into service, the respondent filed OA No.615 of 2009 before the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the O.A., the respondent was reinstated into service on 24.8.2009. Therefore, the O.A. was dismissed as infructuous.

3. The petitioners issued charge-sheet dated 18.3.2009 to the respondent, framing two charges. Challenging the same, the respondent filed OA No.45 of 2010 before the Tribunal. He pleaded that once he has been acquitted by this Court, there is no justification for the petitioners to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the basis of same allegations and same charges.

4. The petitioners opposed the O.A. by filing a reply. They stated that the content of the charges framed in the charge memo dated 18.3.2009 is different from that of the charge in the criminal case. It was also pleaded that the parameters for enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings are substantially different from those, in the criminal cases.

5. The Tribunal allowed the OA. through its order dated 31.08.2010. Hence this writ petition.

6. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for B.S.N.L. submits that the petitioners felt the impediment in framing charges, on account of the fact that the criminal case was pending against the respondent and though this Court acquitted the respondent, the right of the department to initiate the disciplinary proceedings is not at all affected or hampered. He submits that misconduct on the part of the respondent can certainly be decided with reference to the relevant provisions of the Service Rules and that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the charge memo.

7. Sri R. Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, obviously, because the petitioners felt that barring an allegation, giving rise to the initiation of criminal proceedings, there is nothing to be initiated on the departmental side, no charges were framed and once the respondent was acquitted, the situation does not improve in favour of the petitioners. He submits that Charge No.2 was nothing but a replica of the charge in the criminal case and the petitioners cannot proceed with the same, after this Court acquitted the respondent. As regards Charge No.1, he submits that though it is independent of the allegation giving rise to framing of a charge by the criminal Court, the petitioners cannot frame the same at this length of time. He contends that if the first charge has nothing to do with the second one, by that very reason, the petitioners could have proceeded with the enquiry at the initial stage itself, and the fact that no charge was framed for the past ten years, would certainly disentitle the petitioners,