DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. : - Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.

2. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, by its judgment dated 15th September, 2005, which is impugned in these proceedings by the State of Maharashtra, directed the Government to revoke an order by which the respondent was suspended. The State has been directed to reinstate the respondent to the post of Deputy Education Officer (Secondary). The Tribunal while noting that the respondent was arrested in a trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau in January, 2004, has ordered the revocation of suspension on the ground that no charge - sheet has been filed in the criminal• case though a period of seventeen months has elapsed. The Tribunal has relied upon the view which it has taken in earlier cases that where a trial is likely to take a long period of time and there is no likelihood of the delinquent tampering with witnesses, the authorities should revoke the order of suspension. After hearing the AGP for the Petitioner and Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, we have arrived the view that the order of the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and that it has be quashed and set aside. We now proceed to elucidate our reasons.

3. The respondent was holding the post of a Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) at Kolhapur. He was in - charge of work pertaining to litigation an Assistant Teacher had filed an application before the School Tribunal Kolhapur. The Assistant Teacher lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid on 2nd January, 2004. In the course thereof, it alleged that the respondent came to be arrested while he was accepting a bribe Rs. 10,000/ - and C.R. 3 of 2004 was registered by the Shahupuri Police Station Kolhapur. By an order dated 6th January, 2004, the respondent came to be placed on suspension under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 by the Joint Secretary in the School Education Department of the State of Maharashtra.

4. The respondent instituted an application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in order to challenge his suspension from service contending inter alia that no charge - sheet had been filed even though a period fifteen months had elapsed from the date of the incident and the order suspension. The respondent relied on a Government Resolution dated 3rd April, 2000 and contended that he had made a representation claiming reinstatement and that had not received any response.

5. A reply was filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in which it w submitted that in view of a subsequent Resolution dated 16th March, 200 issued by the State of Maharashtra, amending the earlier GR dated 3rd April, 2000, there could be no revocation of the order of suspension merely upon completion of a period of six months after the suspension had come into form. The State Government stated in its reply that sanction had been granted by Government for filing a charge - sheet against the respondent in a letter dated 3 June, 2005 to the ACB. Moreover, it was submitted that the respondent had arrested while he was accepting a bribe and that the misconduct being of serious nature, no case for revocation of suspension was made out. It was al stated that Government had come to the conclusion prima facie that this was a and proper case to grant sanction for filing a charge - sheet and that upon conclusion of investigation, the Anti Corruption Bureau would take investigation to its logical conclusion.

6. The Tribunal allowed the application by its Older which is impugned these proceedings. The Tribunal noted that by the GF dated 16th March, 2 the provisions in the earlier Government Resolution dated 3rd April, 2000 for automatic revocation of an order of , us pension, in a case where a charge -