ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1.0. The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Ahmedabad Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad wherein the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the first of order of extension of suspension in view of the FIR No.3 of 2021 dated 27.03.2021 lodged against the respondent in the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.0. Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows:

2.1. The respondent was working as Joint Commissioner in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Ahmedabad Zone where one complainant lodged complaint dated 26.3.2021 against the respondent for demanding a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- along with one of Junior Officer before the Anti Corruption Bureau.

2.2 An FIR being 3 of 2021 came to be lodged in ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad against the respondent on 27.3.2021 and she was arrested on the very day by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Considering the complaint and FIR, respondent was placed under suspension by way of order dated 4.5.2021 under Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCA(CCA) Rules, 1965.

2.3. The Anti Corruption Bureau after investigation filed a charge-sheet on 24.5.2021 before the learned Special Judge (ACB) at District and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur. The respondent has also been enlarged on regular bail on 8.6.2021. The suspension period was extended for 180 days w.e.f. 25.6.2021, against which, the respondent preferred the Original Application No.249 of 2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which quashed and set aside the order of suspension and also ruled that the respondent entitled to salary for the interregnum period with a simple interest of 8%.

2.4. This has aggrieved the present petitioners and it has approached this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that the coordination of effort between multiple agencies is a must being ACB, CVC, DgoV and the Ministry and this exercise is time consuming exercise. There is no undue or unjustified delay in issuance of charge-sheet against the respondent by the concerned department. To issue a departmental chargesheet within a period of 90 days is an uphill task. He sought to rely upon the couple of decisions to urge that the currency of suspension though is not expected to be extended beyond three months but that would also not mean that as a matter of fact once its extended, it should be declared null and void. There should not be any hard and fast rule in this regard. The overall circumstances in each case will needs to be regarded before implementing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The prayers sought for as follows:

“A. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order impugned dated 29.03.2022:

B. Pending admissions, hearing and disposal of the petition be pleased to stay the effect of the order impugned dated 29.03.2022:

C. Be pleased to grant ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para 8(B) above:”

3.0. On issuance of notice, respondent is represented by learned advocate Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, who has resisted this petition. We have extensively heard Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned advocate for the respondent.

4.0. We notice that application moved under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act by the respondent aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2021 has been dealt with extensively by the Court where the period of suspension has been extended for a further 180 days w.e.f. 25.6.2021. The Tribunal after giving a detailed consideration of the various authorities concluded that the respondent had been placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 27.3.2021 and till further extension the petitioner had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the r