ORAL JUDGMENT V. M. KANADE, J. : - By this petition, petitioner - Union of India is challenging the order dated 26 -3 -2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 677 of 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal (For short "CAT") by the said order allowed the application which is filed by the respondent and quashed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Writ Petition are as under : - 3. Petitioner had issued a charge -sheet to the respondent dated 13 -5 -2003, alleging therein that the respondent had committed misconduct and that he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of Government Servant. Respondent filed Original Application in the CAT for quashing and setting aside the charge -sheet which was served on him. 4. The case of the respondent is that he was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax in 1998 and was exercising powers in the capacity of Quasi Judicial Authority and had taken certain decisions with respect to grant of NOC. It was contended by the respondent in the Original Application that the said charge -sheet had been issued with mala fide intention and the principal contention which was raised by the respondent was that the charge -sheet was bad in law since the applicant could not have been issued the charge -sheet while he exercised his powers as Quasi Judicial Authority. The CAT held that no case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant was made out. It further held that the respondent had issued NOC after he had scrutinized the documents such as cash -books, report of Income -tax Inspector and, thereafter, had issued the NOC. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others V.I". K. K. Dhawan reported in 1993 see (L and S) 325 = (/993) 2 see 56 has held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the charge particularly at the stage of framing of the charge. K. K. Dhawan reported in 1993 see (L and S) 325 = (/993) 2 see 56 has held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the charge particularly at the stage of framing of the charge. It is further submitted that the same view had been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh reported in 1994 see (L and S) 768 = (1994) J see 357. He submitted that the Tribunal had erred in relying on the decision 0 the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar V.I. Union of Indi and others, reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 685 = 1999 SCC (L and S) 1299 = AJ, 1999 SC 2881. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent, as a Quasi Judicial Authority had passed this order granting NOC to the assessee and merely because such an order was pass that could not be the basis of charge of misconduct. It is submitted that there w no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Upendra Singhs case cited by the Union of India has been considered by the Supreme Court in Zunjarraos case. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made b the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. In our view, the Tribunal clearly erred in examining the correctness of the charge -sheet and more particularly at the stage of framing of the charge. In our view, the said exercise is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We are fortified in our view by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case K . K. Dhawan (Supra) and in the case of Upendra Singh (Supra). In the case of Zunjarrao (supra), the facts before the Supreme Court were whether the decision to initiate t departmental inquiry was taken on indefinite information and, under circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the suspicion could not form basis for disciplinary proceedings and further held that there must e reasonable basis for Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the employee. In the case of Zunjarrao (supra), the facts before the Supreme Court were whether the decision to initiate t departmental inquiry was taken on indefinite information and, under circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the suspicion could not form basis for disciplinary proceedings and further held that there must e reasonable basis for Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the employee. The ratio of the said judgment in the case of Zunjarrao (supra), therefore, will not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 9. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition allowed.