JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2012, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5247 of 2012 affirming the judgment and order dated 1.6.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.495 of 2012 filed by the respondent by which and whereunder the Tribunal has quashed the suspension order passed by the appellants.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. That the respondent who belongs to the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax-1985 batch) has been put under suspension since 28.12.1999 in view of the pendency of two criminal cases against him duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) and in which he was also arrested on two occasions, namely, 23.12.1999 and 19.10.2000 in relation to the said cases. During the relevant time, the respondent was on deputation to Enforcement Directorate and was working as Deputy Director (Enforcement).

B. The CBI registered RC No.S18/E0001/99 dated 29.1.1999 against the respondent in respect of certain illegal transactions whereby the Directorate had seized a fax message (debit advice) from the premises of one Subhash Chandra Bharjatya purported to have been sent from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland, which reflected a debit of US$ 1,50,000 from the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland in favour of one S.K. Kapoor, holder of account number 002- 9-608080, Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), Head office at Hong Kong, as per the advice of the customer, i.e. Royalle Foundation. Subhash Bharjatya filed a complaint dated 4.1.1998 alleging the said fax message to be a forgery and had been planted in his premises during the course of search in order to frame him and further that he and his employee were illegally detained on the night of 1.1.1998 and were threatened and manhandled. It was in the investigation of this case that CBI took a prima facie view that respondent was part of a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Abhishek Verma to frame Subhash Chandra Bharjatya in a case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) by fabricating false evidence to implicate Subhash Bharjatya.

C. Subsequently, CBI registered another case No. RC S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999 in respect of disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent amounting to more than 12 crores to his known sources of income during his service period of 14 years. As the respondent was arrested on 23.12.1999, he was under deemed suspension. The suspension order was reviewed subsequently. In view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as `Rules 1965’), the suspension order was passed by the disciplinary authority to be effective till further order.

D. Sanction to prosecute the respondent had been obtained from the competent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1988’).

E. The respondent challenged the order of his suspension before the Tribunal by filing OA No.783 of 2000 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.1.2003 giving the opportunity to the appellants herein to pass a fresh order as appropriate based on facts of the case.

F. The appellants re-considered the case of the suspension in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.1.2003. However, vide order dated 25.4.2003 the appellants decided that the respondent should remain under suspension.

G. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the said order dated 25.4.2003 before the Tribunal by filing OA No.1105 of 2003, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2003. The record reveals that the said order of the Tribunal was challenged by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. However, the said peti