Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition impugns the final order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in OA No. 2218/2012, which quashed and set aside the disciplinary proceedings, including the Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 30.04.2008 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority (“DA”), which had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the respondent. The impugned order also quashed the order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Revisionary Authority that had rejected the respondent’s review application. The petitioner was also directed to forthwith reinstate the respondent in service alongwith all consequential benefits. An opportunity was, however, granted to the Disciplinary Authority to hold fresh inquiry proceedings in accordance with provisions contained in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) against the respondent from the stage it had been quashed by the Tribunal. However, any such proceeding would have to be untrammelled by the petitioner’s earlier assertions in the Article of Charge – that the respondent employee had indulged in unfair practice of manoeuvring and manipulating in order to get his transfer cancelled by any means.

2. While working as Director, Regional News Unit, Hyderabad, the respondent was transferred as Director, DFP, Guwahati by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (in short M/o I&B) by Order No. 176/2005-IIS dated 12.12.2005. The petitioner was conscious that despite this transfer order, the respondent had managed to continue at his Hyderabad post till May, 2006 and hence a letter dated 30.05.2006 (issued by it on 10.06.2006) directed the AIR, Hyderabad to relieve the respondent forthwith. On 07.07.2006, the respondent relinquished his charge in Hyderabad, but four days later, on 10.07.2006, he resumed the charge in Hyderabad on the basis of three allegedly fake communications. These communications included two letters from the Secretary (I&B), one of which was endorsed to the Under Secretary (IIS). The third document was an undated telegram, which too communicated that the respondent’s request for retention at AIR, Hyderabad in his capacity as Director was under active consideration and that he should be retained in the same capacity till further orders.

3. When the respondent did not report at the Guwahati posting and continued to work at Hyderabad, an explanation was sought from AIR, Hyderabad. It was then discovered that the three aforesaid fake communications had been the basis of respondent’s continuance in Hyderabad.

4. A fact finding inquiry was conducted by the Director General, NSD, AIR. His report held that: (i) the respondent failed in compliance of his transfer order to Guwahati; (ii) instead, he had indulged in the unfair practice of manoeuvring and manipulation of his order of transfer getting cancelled by any means; (iii) there was an assumption that the respondent being the sole beneficiary of the aforesaid fake orders, coupled with his evasive replies to the questions asked about the same and since presumably no one else would engineer such a fake communication, a clear suspicion arose towards the respondent. The Inquiry Report further opined that the facts and circumstances indicated that the respondent was also directly or indirectly involved in the origin of the three aforesaid communications to the Station Director, Hyderabad, as it was evident from his previous communications that he wanted to continue in RNS, AIR Hyderabad at any cost. Finally, the report concluded that the respondent had approached the Station Director, Hyderabad immediately after the receipt of the two fake letters, which also clearly show that he was aware that said letters were in the offing.

5. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for breach of Rules 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of the 1965 Rules and an explanation was called for from him as to why disciplinary proceedings should n