SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The Council for Advancement of Peoples Action & Rural Technology (CAPART, for short) and its Director General in this writ petition impugn order dated 8th September, 2016, passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing T.A. No. 1466/2009 filed by B.R. Suman, the respondent before us. The impugned order quashes and sets aside the enquiry report and holds that there was no material to show that the applicant-respondent had violated Rule 3 (1)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

2. This is the second round of litigation, as the Tribunal vide order dated 6th May, 2011, had earlier quashed the charge memo itself, whereupon CAPART had filed W.P. (C) No. 4126/2011, which was allowed with an order of remand. The relevant and operative portion of the High Court’s order dated 6th May, 2011 is reproduced below:-

“19. In para 9 above we have extrapolated the specific averments in the charge sheet which were highlighted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the same would evidence that the charge sheet is not vague. The charge sheet does not simply highlight an undue haste. It highlights that in the backdrop of the undue haste