JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated December 2, 2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, ('Tribunal., for short) in Original Application No.3421/2019 ('OA., for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein, thereby setting aside the order of punishment passed against the respondent with a further observation that it shall be open to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order, keeping in view, the findings and observations in the order. The Tribunal was of the view that in case the Disciplinary Authority feels that punishment needs to be imposed, it shall be one which does not come in the way of the entitlement of the respondent to be promoted, subject to his otherwise being found fit. It also directed that if any sealed cover was maintained, it shall be opened and consequential steps shall be taken.

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent is an officer of Indian Foreign Service (IFS) of 1990 batch. He earned various promotions while working as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs. He was issued a charge memo dated February 23, 2017 alleging that he had a child through a woman, whom he did not legally marry; that he obtained a birth certificate fraudulently from Nagarapalika Parishad, Chandpur, Bijnor, UP in respect of the child; and a passport on the basis of the same. He was also placed under suspension, but was reinstated after sometime.

3. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge memo. The case setup by the respondent in his reply was that he had a child through a woman by name Ms. GG, a Mongolian national through an arrangement of surrogacy and that he did not have any illicit relation with her. He further stated that though he had a birth certificate for the child, from the United States of America ('USA., for short), it became necessary to obtain a birth certificate from an authority in India, for the purpose of obtaining a passport for the surrogate child, and that the same was presented for obtaining passport.

4. It was his case that none of the authorities who issued the certificates, have ever stated that any misrepresentation was made or fraud was played and that the charges framed against him are without any basis. His case was also that the entire episode is the result of an anonymous letter sent by an employee in a Foreign Embassy, who was dismissed for acts of misconduct, and that the very initiation of the proceedings against him was without any legal or factual basis. Pursuant to the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction to the next lower post for a period of two years, which shall be a bar for promotion of the respondent during such period, with a further direction that on promotion on the expiry of the period of two years, the reduction to the lower post shall not operate to postpone the future increments of pay and that he shall regain his original seniority in the next higher post.

5. The OA was filed with a prayer to declare the entire disciplinary proceedings as illegal and violative of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('CCS (CCA) Rules', hereinafter) and to quash the charge memo dated February 23, 2017 and the order of punishment dated July 31, 2019. He also made a prayer for promotion, by opening the sealed cover and to extend consequential benefits thereof. In fact, he sought the benefit of the judgment dated March 22, 2018 in OA.30/2018 filed by one Ms. Devyani Khobragade.

6. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he had an unblemished service, spread over several decades and the charge sheet was issued on the basis of an anonymous letter submitted by an indisciplined employee in the Foreign Embassy. As a matter of policy, disciplinary proceedings are not initiated on the basis of anonymous letters. The proceedings have been initia