.1. The respondent No.1, a Member of Indian Engineering Service, was issued a Memorandum dated 10.10.2006, proposing imputation of minor penalty against him. The statement of imputation annexed to the Memorandum contained a large number of allegations

.against him, for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while working as DE, Pratapgarh. It was further alleged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 24.7.2003 to 27.7.03 without information and sanction of leave and was making false allegations of committing irregularities against his colleagues and superiors. Before issuing the Memorandum, the petitioner had sought advice of Central Vigilance Commission, which, after perusing the investigation report, had advised initiation of minor penalty proceedings against the respondent No.1.

.2. The respondent No.1 filed OA No. 1003 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of the Memorandum and consequential disciplinary proceedings. Vide order dated 25.7.2008, the Tribunal set aside the Memorandum dated 10.10.2006 and also directed that any adverse remarks in his ACR on account of minor penalty should also be expunged. He was also held entitled to all consequential benefits. The decision of the Tribunal was based on the ground that absence of the respondent No.1 from duty occurred in the

.year 2003 and was a trivial one and their clubbing with the allegations of being a whistle blower clearly showed bias towards him and a pre-determined attitude of the authorities. The Tribunal felt that there was a danger of bias as the complaint made by him had not been proved to be vexatious and the Officers, against whom complaint had been made, had been transferred. The Tribunal found that initiation of enquiry was held by oblique motive and extraneous consideration, in order to teach a lesson to the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Union of India has come to this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

.3. According to the petitioner, a complaint was received by them through Central Vigilance Commission on 10.6.2005 and the same was got investigated. In view of the findings of irregularities on the part of the respondent No.1, it was decided by the competent authority, on the advice of Central Vigilance Commission, to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No.1 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and a Memorandum was accordingly issued to him, asking him to submit his reply.

.The Respondent No.1, instead of giving reply, sought inspection of certain documents. When his request for documents was under consideration, he approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.1003/2007, which resulted in passing of the impugned order.

4. One reason given by the Tribunal for quashing the Disciplinary Proceedings against the respondent No.1 is that his absence from leave, having occurred in the year 2003, was very much known to the petitioner and its clubbing with other allegations shows biased and a predetermined attitude. A perusal of the memorandum issued to the respondent No.1 would show that the main allegations against him was that he, while posted and working as Divisional Engineer (DE) Pratap Garg, made a complaint to M.D., BSNL against GMT(General Manager Telecom) and GDM (P&D) and the allegations made by him were found to be baseless and not proved. The other allegations against him were that (i) he had disconnected Allahabad ²Mirzapur PCM from OCB on 20.5.2003 without any order; (ii) he failed to implement IUC from 1.5.03 to 23.5.03 for M/s Essar in spite of order dated 30.4.03 and (iii) he unauthorisedly suppressed CLI for WLL service connection. Another allegation against him was unauthorised absence from duty from 24.7.03 to 27.7.03 without any information and without sanction of leave. It is true that unauthorised absence of the respondent No.1 from duty would have come to the notice of his superiors in July, 2003 itself and no disciplinary acti