JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Union of India through Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, by this writ petition assails the order dated 28.4.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as CAT), By the impugned order, CAT allowed O.A. No. 902/2003 of Respondent S.P.Tanti, quashed termination order dated 15.4.2002 and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits excluding back wages. CAT quashed the termination order holding that it had not been passed by the appointing authority, as mandated in terms of Rule 5(1)(a) of CCS(TS) Rules, 1965. CAT held that non compliance with this mandatory requirement, vitiated the termination order.

2. The facts and circumstances and respective contentions culminating in the passing of the impugned order and the grounds of challenge thereof are as follows:

(i) On 28.11.1995, the respondent S.P. Tanti applied for the post of Public Prosecutor in CBI against the post reserved for "SC Category Candidate". On verification of his caste certificate, a few doubts arose as to its sanctity entailing a clarification. However, taking a lenient view, respondent was appointed as Public Prosecutor against the post reserved for OBC candidates. Appointment letter dated 9.12.1996 was issued under the signatures of Dr. Tarsem Chand , Asst. Director (Estt.), CBI.

(ii) On further enquiry about his caste certificate, District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, vide his report dated 10.12.1998, clarified that as per report of Anumandal Padhadhikari Sadar, Bhagalpur, the signatures of the issuing authority available on the caste certificate of the respondent ,were found to be doubtful as they did not tally with the signatures of the then Anumandal Padhadhikari. A criminal case, which is still pending, was lodged at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.

(iii) Controversy with respect to the caste certificate apart, respondent was communicated adverse remarks in his ACR's pertaining to the years 1997 and 1998 which were subsequently expunged on representation. Representation preferred against adverse remarks for the year 1999 was rejected on 3.7.2003. The DPC extended the probation. The post of the respondent though designated as Group B on coming into effect of revised Recruitment Rules in force w.e.f. 27.3.2001 and in pursuance of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, accepted vide letter 14.3.2001, the pay scale of the prosecutors in CBI was revised. As per the revised Recruitment Rules, the post of public prosecutor in CBI now falls in Group A.

(iv) As during the probation of two years, the work, conduct and performance of the Respondent was found unsatisfactory, his probation period was extended for a period of 6 months i.e. upto 20.6.1999. DPC was held on 26.6.2001, which concluded that the performance of the respondent was unsatisfactory even during the extended probation and recommended that his services be terminated. Vide order dated 15.4.2002, signed by Dy. Director (Admn.), CBI services of respondent were terminated with immediate effect.

(v) Respondent made a representation dated 29.4.2002 for cancellation of his termination order and sought his reinstatement claiming that the order of termination was punitive in nature and was passed without following the procedure and safeguards as laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution. It was urged that the real reason for termination was the lodging of FIR No. 45/99 under sections 420, 468, 471 IPC at PS Lodhi Colony.

(vi) The representation was rejected on 23.9.2002 on the ground that the services of respondent were terminated in view of his poor performance during the probation period. Respondent filed O.A. No. 902 of 2003 challenging the termination order dated 15.4.2002. The main plea urged before CAT was that the post held by respondent had been re-designated as a Group A post as per CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, for which the appointing authority is the President of India. The terminatio