Judgment :- Ramakrishnan, J. 1. OP(CAT) No.2314/2012 was filed by the present petitioners against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in OA No.340/2012 while OP(CAT) No.568/2013 was filed by the very same petitioners against the order of the same Tribunal in OA No.684/2012. Since the question which arose in both the cases are the same, the facts of the cases are also more or less similar and the point to be decided in both the cases is also same, both the cases are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The case of the petitioners in both the cases was as follows : The petitioners were working as Inspectors in the Thiruvananthapuram Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation and while they were working so, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.13426/2010, the investigation of the Sampath custodial death case was entrusted with the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called the CBI) as per Annexure A1 attached to Ext.P1 amended copy of the petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the CAT) produced in OP(CAT) No.568/13 and the investigation was entrusted with a team of officers including the present petitioners and the first petitioner was designated as the Chief Investigating Officer in that case as per Annexure A2 order attached to Ext.P1 mentioned above. The investigation conducted by the first petitioner as the Chief Investigating Officer along with the second petitioner and others in the above said case was appreciated by the Department and the third respondent had granted cash award to the petitioners evidenced by Annexure A3 document attached to Ext.P1 document mentioned above. Since there was threat to the life of the members of the investigation team, the third respondent sent Annexure A4 letter attached to Ext.P1 mentioned above dated 30.09.2010 requesting the Joint Director, Head of the Zone, CBI, Chennai to provide security to the petitioners. While the investigation was in progress, the involvement of two Indian Police Service Officers, namely, the then Superintendent of Police, Palakkad Sri.Vijay Sakhare and the then Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range Sri.Mohammed Yasin was revealed along with other persons. Accordingly, the first petitioner sought permission during the last week of November 2010 from Sri.Nandakumar Nair, the then Head of Branch, Office of the CBI, Thiruvananthapuram to array 18 persons as accused including the above said higher police officials. Accordingly, the first petitioner sought permission during the last week of November 2010 from Sri.Nandakumar Nair, the then Head of Branch, Office of the CBI, Thiruvananthapuram to array 18 persons as accused including the above said higher police officials. That infuriated the Head of Branch and he started issuing memos to the first petitioner even for trivial matters. Thereafter, Sri.Haridath was appointed in the place of the first petitioner as Chief Investigating Officer from 4.12.2010 onwards. At that time, the brother of the deceased Sampath had filed IA No.16944/2010 in WP(C) No.13426/2010 before this Court seeking a detailed report regarding the investigation and production of the entire case diary and as per Annexure A5 order produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above, this Court was satisfied with the progress of the investigation done and appreciated the work done by the Investigation team and also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to monitor the investigation and ordered not to dislocate the present team without getting orders from this Court. The petitioners were rendering their able assistance in the investigation to Sri.Haridath under the monitoring of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and it was proceeding in the right direction without interference from any quarters. The team gathered materials overwhelmingly establishing the involvement of the two IPS Officers named above. It is also mentioned in Ext.P1 petition that this Court, after perusing the first tri-weekly progress report dated 1.1.2011 and connected records, not only reprimanded the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, Kochi, but further interdicted Sri.Ashokkumar, Joint Director, Head of Zone, CBI, Chennai and also Sri.Nandakumar, Head of Branch, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram from interfering with the investigation and as per Annexure A6 order produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above dated 24.1.2011, directed the State Government as well as the CBI to give protection to the members of the investigation team, after being convinced that there was serious threat to their life. The investigation of the case was almost over by the second week of March 2011. On the basis of the materials collected, Sri.Haridath filed an application on 14.3.2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam seeking issuance of arrest warrant against the named accused persons arrayed as A1, A2, A13, A14, A15 and A16 and non-bailable warrants were issued against those persons including the two IPS Officers mentioned above. Sparing accused Nos.15, 16 and 13, the remaining accused persons were arrested on 24.3.2011. Sparing accused Nos.15, 16 and 13, the remaining accused persons were arrested on 24.3.2011. The CBI challenged Annexure A5 and A6 orders produced along with Ext.P1 before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Apex Court, without interfering with the orders passed by this Court, by order dated 1.4.2011 in Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Criminal) NO.774/2011, only permitted the CBI Director to depute a Joint Director to supervise the investigation carried out by Sri.Haridath and the Supreme Court did not accept the other prayers of the CBI including the one for permission for initiation of a contempt of court case against Sri.Haridath as per Annexure A7 produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above. Thereafter, with the arrival of Sri.O.P.Galhotra IPS and Joint Director, Head of the Zone, CBI, Economic Offences, New Delhi and Sri.S.K.Peshin, Superintendent of Police, CBI, in the first week of April, 2011, the present petitioners were slowly and steadily eased out from the investigation and with effect from 3.9.2011, they were not allowed to participate wholly in the investigation. In fact, Sri.Haridath had been completely forced to manage things himself even without any interaction from the petitioners. The above said two officers were compelling Sri.Haridatt to undo whatever he had done earlier, for exonerating the two IPS officers who were found involved in the Sampath custody death case. He was even compelled to state that there was no prima facie evidence against those IPS officers and the attitude of the CBI Officers was criticized by the then Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Annexure A8 order produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above in Crl.RP No.41/2011. In the meantime, on account of the pressure, threat and intimidation exerted on Sri.Haridath by the top CBI officers, including the officers who had come out to supervise the investigation, Haridath committed suicide on 15.3.2012 and after Sri.O.P.Galhotra and Sri.S.K.Peshin assumed charge of supervising the investigation, they had forced Haridath to undo everything including to recall and change the statement of witnesses/approvers even recorded under 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, no honest officer left to himself shall venture. It was later revealed that a note, alleged to have been written by late Haridath, was recovered from the body of the deceased Haridath, in which he had implicated the present petitioners, an Advocate and also the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, stating that there was pressure exerted on him by these persons, during the investigation. According to the petitioners, the said note was either fabricated or forced to be written by Haridath at the intervention of the high officials of the CBI. Thereafter, a case was registered in respect of the suicide committed by Haridath, falsely implicating the present petitioners as well as the accused and Annexure A9 order produced along with Ext.P1 was issued, transferring the first petitioner to Calcutta and a similar order was passed transferring the second petitioner to Gauhati and they were relieved from their duty from their Thiruvananthapuram office as per Exts.A10 and A11 orders produced along with Ext.P1. These transfer orders were questioned by the present petitioners before the Tribunal by filing OA No.340/2012, stating that the above proceedings were vitiated by malice and without any bona fides and to wreck vengeance against the present petitioners, since during the investigation, they revealed the involvement of two IPS officers in the commission of the crime and wanted to take further steps against them and they were not prepared to withdraw from their stand and it was in the form of a punishment for no fault of theirs that such transfer orders were issued and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal. 3. The respondents have filed a counter, denying those allegations and inter alia stating that since the names of the petitioners were mentioned in the alleged suicide note found from the body of deceased Haridath and they have been implicated in that criminal case as accused persons and in order to ensure fair investigation, they have decided to transfer them and it is not with any malice and it was done in all good faith and in public interest only. 4. 4. After considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal passed Annexure A12 order produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above, which was also produced as Ext.P10 in OP(CAT) No.2314/12 wherein it was observed that the various averments and contentions made relating to the investigation of Sampath custody death case conducted by the petitioners and the scope of the investigation to be conducted in respect of the suicide of Haridath which are outside the domain of the tribunal are not expected to be considered by the Tribunal and considered several decisions of the Apex Court regarding the judicial review of the order of transfer by the Tribunal. The OA was disposed of with the following observations : "17. Notwithstanding all the above, one aspect has to be considered. The contention of the applicants is that the suicide note is fabricated. In any event, they not having allowed to take active participation in the investigation after 03.09.2011, according to the applicants, they cannot be held, in any way, responsible for the sad end of the said Haridath. If, in the future, this aspect has been proved and the applicants are not held responsible, obviously, the transfer of the applicants to such a far off place should be reviewed and the applicants should be brought back to Kerala. This drill has to be ensured by the Director of CBI at the appropriate time. 18. Yet another aspect is that the applicants have not joined the new duty stations, hoping that their case would be decided expeditiously and their move depends upon the decision of the Tribunal. The case would have been decided slightly earlier, but for the fact that there has been certain inadvertent omission on the part of the Tribunal in issuing notice to the private parties, which has compelled to defer the case by at least three weeks. In all expectation, the applicants would have applied for leave for the intervening period. The case would have been decided slightly earlier, but for the fact that there has been certain inadvertent omission on the part of the Tribunal in issuing notice to the private parties, which has compelled to defer the case by at least three weeks. In all expectation, the applicants would have applied for leave for the intervening period. Even if they have not so far done, on their joining the new duty stations, if they apply for leave for the period they did not attend the office, the authorities may not reject their application but sympathetically consider the same." It was also observed in paragraph 14 to 16 of the order of the Tribunal that there is no pleading to the effect that the transfer is against any established professed norm or that the same is passed by an incompetent authority. It was further observed that the dictum laid down in the decisions in Najamal Hussain Mehadi v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 SCC 532 ) and Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592 ) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and no malice or mala fides has been established. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed OP(CAT) No.2314/12 to quash those orders and direct them to continue in the posts as Inspectors in their Thiruvananthapuram Branch and entitle to be part of the investigation team in Sampath custodial death case. 5. Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit to this petition, denying the allegations made against them and justifying the orders of transfer and also denying the allegations made regarding the integrity and efficiency in their work. They have reiterated the contentions taken by them before the Tribunal justifying their act and also contended that the allegation that the suicide note found from the body of the deceased Haridath was fabricated or made to be written by him under compulsion by the higher officials of the CBI is not correct and the note was sent for handwriting expert opinion by the CBCID, Kerala, which was conducting the investigation of Haridath suicide case and it was revealed that it was written in the handwriting of Haridath himself. However, since the investigation is in progress in that case and matters have to be decided by the concerned court regarding the genuineness of the letter etc, they are not making any comment regarding the same in the counter statement and according to them, the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justifiable and in spite of that order, they did not join duty in the respective places or made any request for transfer and so, they prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, on 9.7.2012 on 7.15 pm, Annexure A13 notice dated 6.7.2012 was issued by the 4th respondent in the OA before the Tribunal directing the first petitioner to attend the Special Court for CBI, Thiruvananthapuram on 13.7.2012 for giving evidence. He had also received another summons from the Special Court (CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, directing him to give evidence before that court on 2.8.2011 in CC No.19/11 which is marked as Annexure 14 produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above. They have also filed a representation dated 10.07.2012 and 11.7.2012 before the Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB, Gauhati and Kolkata respectively wherein they have stated that they have filed writ petition before this Court against Annexure A12 order produced along with Ext.P1 and after obtaining fitness certificate, they will be joining the branch and Annexure A15 produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above is copy of the representation submitted by the first petitioner herein and similar representation was submitted by the second petitioner as well. It is also mentioned in the petition filed before the Tribunal that they had given evidence for CBI consequent to the summons issued to them from the court, which will go to show that they are loyal to the organisation. While so, with a view to harass the petitioners and with ulterior motives, Annexures A16 and A17 dated 17.7.2012 produced along with Ext.P1 were issued by the third respondent intimating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them and placing them under suspension and also intimating that during the suspension period, their headquarters would be CBI, ACB, Kolkata and Gaughati respectively and they should not leave the headquarters without prior permission from the competent authority. The orders passed by the CBI is without any bona fides, vitiated by malice and in none of the counters filed by them to the petitions filed in the petition before the Tribunal in which, they have questioned the validity of the transfer orders, they have not mentioned about any move on their part regarding initiation of any disciplinary action against the petitioners. Annexure A18 produced along with Ext.P1 is one such copy of objection filed by the respondents in MA No.466/12 in OA No.340/12. They have also mentioned at the time of hearing that they were transferred only because their names were included in the Haridath suicide case and nothing more. Thereafter, the third respondent issued Annexures A27 and A28 memo of charges to the petitioners for which they have submitted Annexures A29 and A30 explanations produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above, denying the allegations. Most of the allegations in the memo of charges were rejected by the Tribunal while passing the order in OA No.340/12 and as such, they are not entitled to repeat the same. Further, Annexure A12 order produced along with Ext.P1 mentioned above, which is now challenged before this Court in OP (CAT) No.2314/12, has not become final and they have initiated disciplinary proceedings against them, which is illegal and against the norms. Further, according to them, the documents produced will go to show that the act of the respondents is vitiated by malice, without any bona fides and without proper application of mind and the allegations in the memo of charges are unreasonable and on the basis of non-existing facts and thereby, the entire procedure adopted is illegal. So, they questioned the order of suspension passed and also the memo of charges issued by filing OA No.684/12, the amended copy of which is Ext.P1 in OP(CAT) 568/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, requesting for quashing Annexures A16, A17, A27 and A28 produced in the case and directing the respondents in that case not to implement Annexure A16 and A17 suspension orders and Annexures A27 and 28 memorandum of charges. 7. The respondents have filed a detailed counter before the Tribunal, reiterating their stand and justifying their act of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. 7. The respondents have filed a detailed counter before the Tribunal, reiterating their stand and justifying their act of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. After considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order produced in OA No.568/2013 wherein the following observations have been made : "In this regard, we note that the transfer of the applicants to Kolkotta and Guwahati is under litigation before the Honourable High Court of Kerala. During the period of suspension, the headquarters of the applicants had been kept at Kolkotta/Guwahati. In the interest of completing the enquiry as quickly as possible and to enable the applicants to defend themselves effectively and in the interest of natural justice, it is better that their headquarters is kept in Kerala. This will not put the Government to any extra expenditure like grant of travelling allowance. In the light of the above discussion, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take further action in the matter as per law and in case they decide to conduct an enquiry against the applicants, the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants shall be completed within six months from the date of this order failing which, the memo of charges shall stand dropped. If the applicants make a request within a month from the date of this order, for keeping their headquarters during the period of enquiry in Kerala, the same shall be granted forthwith. The competent authority shall review the order of suspension if they are still valid in the light of the observations made herein and if it is decided to continue the suspension, then, speaking orders, duly considering all the relevant aspects shall be passed and communicated to the applicants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, to the extent it does not quash the suspension orders issued against them and the memo of charges issued, they preferred OA(CAT) No.568/2013 before this Court. It is mentioned in the petition that a crime was registered as Crime No.455/2012 of Najarakkal Police Station regarding the suicide of Haridath and thereafter, the case was transferred to the Crime Branch of the Kerala Police where it was re- registered as Crime No.351/CR/HSW/II/EKM of Ernakulam Branch, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The petitioners challenged the above said proceedings before this Court as Criminal MC No.3688/12 and this Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, produced in OA No.568/2013, quashed the proceedings, observing that the act of the Investigating Officer inplicating the petitioners in the case, alleging offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195 and 195A of the Indian Penal Code in Haridath's suicide case, is an abuse of the process of court and the allegation of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code alleged against them is again unworthy of any merit. So, according to them, in view Ext.P7 judgment mentioned above, there is no case now pending against the petitioners involving them in the suicide of Haridath and as per Annexure A12 order produced by the petitioners along with Ext.P1, which is the subject matter of OP(CAT) No.2314/12, there is no necessity for them to transfer or suspend them. But, contrary to the same, as per Exts.P9 and P10 orders dated 14.1.2013, the third respondent extended the period of their suspension for a further period of 90 days beyond 15.1.2013 without considering the directions contained in Ext.P8 order and they have not even paid the subsistence allowance and also the legitimate salaries due to them. Further, the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Calcutta, in his capacity as Enquiry Officer, sent Ext.P11 notice asking them to appear before him on 12.2.2013 and 13.2.2013 in the office of the Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB, Thiruvananthapuram for a preliminary hearing. According to the petitioners, they reiterated their contention that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners is vitiated by malice and without application of mind and with unreasonableness. According to the petitioners, they reiterated their contention that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners is vitiated by malice and without application of mind and with unreasonableness. The memo of charges contain allegations which are non-existent and therefore, they prayed for quashing Annexures A16 and 17 orders of suspension and Annexures A27 and 28 memo of charges produced along with Ext.P1 and giving a direction by issuing a writ of mandamus directing them to reinstate the petitioners at Thiruvananthapuram Branch of the CBI as if Annexures A16 and 17 orders and Annexures A27 and 28 memo of charges produced along with Ext.P1 have not been issued to them, with all consequential benefits and declare that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to be posted as Inspectors in the CBI, Thiruvananthapuram Branch from 18.4.2012 and further entitle for all consequential benefits. 9. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter in OP(CAT) No.568/13, contending as follows : They denied the allegations in the petition and also submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the petition. The allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition are not correct and hence denied. In fact, this court has directed the CBI to conduct the investigation in Sampath Custodial Murder case as per Judgment dated 25.5.2010 in W P(C) No.13426/2010. It is not correct to say that the first petitioner was appointed as the Chief Investigating Officer in the case and they had conducted an excellent investigation in the above crime. Late Haridath was initially proposed as the Investigating Officer of the case, but he was pre-occupied with another sensational case and so, the first petitioner was engaged for conducting the investigation. He registered the crime and conducted the investigation till Haridath took over the charge of investigation on 3.12.2010. Part of the investigation conducted by the petitioners 1 and 2 was not in accordance with the procedures and directions contained in the CBI Manual, which has got statutory force as accepted by the Honourable Supreme Court. Petitioners 1 and 2 purposefully deflected investigation in Crime No.RC8 (S)/2010, CBI, SCB, Thiruvananthapruam by roping in innocent persons and made allegations against many without sufficient evidence. Petitioners 1 and 2 purposefully deflected investigation in Crime No.RC8 (S)/2010, CBI, SCB, Thiruvananthapruam by roping in innocent persons and made allegations against many without sufficient evidence. The first petitioner had gone against the procedures and norms prescribed by the CBI Manual, made his personal opinions in the case diary relating to the above crime and was not abiding by the lawful instructions issued by the supervisory officers in the CBI. They were repeatedly advised by the supervisory officers to abide by the laid down procedures in the CBI Manual to confirm a foolproof investigation but, they did not obey to the lawful instructions and directions issued by the Head of the Branch and the Joint Director. Thus, their investigation proceeded by taking recourse to arbitrary procedures according to their whims and fancies yielding to external influences. They functioned arbitrarily as a separate module defying the control and authority of the institution till the investigation was taken over by Haridath on 3.12.2010 and the petitioners thereafter rendered assistance to the Chief Investigating Officer late Haridath. The Head of the Branch as well as the Joint Director gave directions and instructions to conduct the investigation in accordance with the laid down norms of the CBI Manual and also obeying the directions of the Honourable High Court as well the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While petitioners 1 and 2 were investigating the case, they did not obey the directions of the supervisory officers in the CBI and they took arbitrary decisions thereby conducting the investigation according to their arbitrary actions defying the control and discipline of the institution. In fact, their acts were indisciplined in a fully disciplined institution and they carried out a perfunctory manner of investigation violating the procedure laid down in the CBI Manual. The Honourable Supreme Court in SLP(Crl) No.774/2011 ordered that the investigation in Sampath murder case be carried out as per the norms of the CBI Manual and under the provisions and directions of the Joint Director. The factual allegation that Sri.Ashokkumar, the then Joint Director, CBI, Chennai and Sri.Nandakumar, the then Head of Branch, interfered with the investigation against the directions of the Honourable Court, is absolutely incorrect. Before the period of 3.12.2010, they only instructed the petitioners to comply with the procedures laid down in the CBI Manual and to collect good evidence, before making arbitrary opinions and decisions roping in innocent persons. Before the period of 3.12.2010, they only instructed the petitioners to comply with the procedures laid down in the CBI Manual and to collect good evidence, before making arbitrary opinions and decisions roping in innocent persons. After the orders passed by the Supreme Court in April 2011, the investigation was supervised by another Joint Director from CBI, New Delhi. The allegations made by the petitioners in the paragraphs are made with the mala fide intention to set up a shady background in advancing the allegation of malice in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There was absolutely no interference by the officers of the CBI while the investigation was monitored by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the directions of this Court and later modified by the Honourable Supreme Court by bringing the investigation of the above crime under the supervisory control of the Joint Director, CBI, New Delhi. The further allegation that respondents 2 and 3 were keeping vengeance against the petitioners for having arrayed the two IPS officers in the above crime, is absolutely untrue and is a colourable allegation made in order to make out the case of malice against the institution. It is purposefully made to defame the institution and higher officials of the premier investigating agency who were giving timely guidance and instructions as per law and provisions of CBI Manual. There is absolutely no colourable conduct on the part of the higher officials of the CBI as alleged by the petitioners. In fact, the respondents 2 and 3 had given directions to conduct an honest investigation as directed by the Honourable Court. The other allegations made are in order to pose a case of malice against the supreme investigating agency and the law abiding officials under its hierarchy. The allegations raised in paragraphs 6 to 10 are also false and misleading allegations are raised against the institution and its hierarchical supremacy to pose a case that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioners are accentuated by malice. In fact, the petitioners were defying lawful directions given, thereby showing indiscipline in their conduct. The actual truth is revealed from the suicide note of Haridath, who, on account of the stress and strain exerted by the petitioners, had to end his life. In fact, the petitioners were defying lawful directions given, thereby showing indiscipline in their conduct. The actual truth is revealed from the suicide note of Haridath, who, on account of the stress and strain exerted by the petitioners, had to end his life. Before ending his life, he had attributed responsibility on petitioners 1 and 2 for the sad plight he met with. The conduct of the petitioners is made clear from the transparent dying declaration made by deceased Haridath in the form of his suicide note. It speaks about the blemished conduct of the petitioners. The allegation that the suicide note written by Haridath will not have even the value of paper on which it was written, is absolutely false and that discloses the sinister motive of the petitioners who are prepared to go to any extent in denying the actual truth. The allegation that it is a concocted document and was made to be written by the deceased under compulsion by the higher officials of the CBI is also not correct. In fact, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory proved the genuineness of the letter written by Haridath and its genuineness is corroborated by the evidence of a relative of Haridath and his colleagues in CBI. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners as per law and they were temporarily transferred for meeting public interest when their names were mentioned in Haridath's suicide case. Though they challenged the transfer orders before the Tribunal, it was dismissed and that was questioned by them before this Court as OP(CAT) No.2314/12 and there was no stay granted by this Court as well. In callous disobedience to the order of transfer, the petitioners purposefully did not join duty and they remained in unauthorised absence for more than 10 months. Annexures A16 and A17 produced along with Ext.P1 were passed as their continuance in office will prejudice the enquiry proceedings and is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which they were working. They committed serious dereliction of duty and committed insubordination by defying the directions and instructions issued by the hierarchical supremacy in the office of the institution. Annexures A27 and 28 are memo of charges served on the petitioners stating the grave misconduct committed by them. They are very serious and vital charges framed against the petitioners. They committed serious dereliction of duty and committed insubordination by defying the directions and instructions issued by the hierarchical supremacy in the office of the institution. Annexures A27 and 28 are memo of charges served on the petitioners stating the grave misconduct committed by them. They are very serious and vital charges framed against the petitioners. The memo of charges were given on the allegation of sheer misconduct, grave insubordination and serious dereliction of duty. The allegations in paragraphs 19 to 25 are incorrect and hence denied. The Honourable Tribunal considered the propriety and legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners, for valid reasons and for having committed grave indiscipline and misconduct and dereliction of duty by the petitioners. The enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioners was as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1961 and under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The disciplinary proceedings are on the midway and it is to reach its logical end so as to safeguard public interest. It is settled proposition of law that judicial interference is permissible only if the allegations do not make out a case for initiating the proceedings. Any violation of the laid down procedures of CBI Manual by the CBI officers would entail disciplinary action. The propriety and legality of the investigation carried out in Sampath murder case is before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and charge sheet has been submitted. The allegations made regarding the same by the petitioners in this petition being sub judice, it is not proper and lawful on the part of the respondents to make any comment over it. Annexure A7 order produced along with Ext.P1 has not attained finality and it is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. It cannot absolve the petitioners from their grave misconduct, insubordination, or indisciplined conduct attributed to them or the dereliction of duty cast on them as detailed in Annexures A27 and A28 charge memos. In the decision reported in DIG of Police v. V.S.Samuthiram ( AIR 2013 SC 14 ), it has been held that mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. In the decision reported in DIG of Police v. V.S.Samuthiram ( AIR 2013 SC 14 ), it has been held that mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. It is for the Enquiry Tribunal to consider the genuineness of the allegations made in the charge memo on the basis of the evidence and record its findings and the present petition filed by the petitioners to quash the disciplinary proceedings at this stage is prematured. The respondents have complied with the directions in Ext.P8 order and the seat of enquiry is placed in Kerala providing maximum convenience to the petitioners. The disciplinary enquiry is conducted by a senior officer from CBI, ACB, Calcutta with proven integrity. Though, in Ext.P8 order, the Honourable Tribunal has imposed onerous burdensome conditions on the respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners, they have complied with the same, in the interest of justice. None of the allegations made out are sufficient to quash the suspension order passed or the memo of charges issued to the petitioners. No ground is made out to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondents and the petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs including interim reliefs claimed and they prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 10. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, denying the allegations in the counter and reiterating their contentions raised in the petition. They have further stated that late Haridath had been subjected to severe mental agony by the higher officers of the Department in order to compel him to change the investigation so as to exculpate the two IPS officers found to be involved in the custodial death of Sampath on the basis of evidence collected earlier by these petitioners and also by Haridath and this was reflected in the report submitted by him before this Court in IA No.6944/10 in WP(C) No.13426/10. In fact, they were granted cash award, appreciating the manner in which the investigation was conducted by them in Sampath murder case and that was completely overlooked later while they were alleging that they were collecting false materials in order to falsely implicate the higher officers of the Police Department. In fact, they were granted cash award, appreciating the manner in which the investigation was conducted by them in Sampath murder case and that was completely overlooked later while they were alleging that they were collecting false materials in order to falsely implicate the higher officers of the Police Department. Since their integrity has been questioned in the investigation conducted by them, they were constrained to file private complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam as Criminal MP Nos.526/13 and 527/13 regarding this question. It is clear from the allegations made by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavits filed by him that he is acting with oblique motives. Further, the verification of the case diary file in Sampath murder case will go to show that Haridath was made to get changed versions of the witnesses and approvers against the statements given by them earlier recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The materials collected by them during the course of investigation of Sampath custody case will go to show that there was sufficient evidence to prove the presence of higher IPS officers at the place of occurrence on the date of incident and the allegation to the contrary in the counter statement that they were making their opinions in the case diary file without any materials, is not correct. The attempt of the Crime Branch with the aid of CIB higher officials is to create fabricated evidence to implicate innocent petitioners in Haridath suicide case. So, they prayed for rejecting the contentions of the respondents and allowing the original petition. 11. Heard both sides and perused the documents produced on either side. The points that arise for consideration in these petitions are : 1) Whether the action of the Department, suspending the petitioners and initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing memo of charges to the petitioners is legal and proper and whether the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court on the ground of malice or arbitrariness or want of reasonableness or against the principles of natural justice, as alleged by the petitioners. 2) Whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can exercise the power of judicial review in interfering with the administrative orders passed by the CBI against the petitioners either in transferring them or in initiating disciplinary proceedings against them and issuing charge memos and suspending them pending enquiry and grant the reliefs claimed by them". 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the original petitions submitted that all the documentary evidence produced by them will go to showthat they are having good reputation in the Department and there is no allegation questioning their integrity in the service and the manner of investigation conducted by them in Sampath murder case was appreciated by this Court in the Writ Petition and the interlocutory application filed by the brother of the deceased Sampath, which will go to show that they are having good reputation in the Department and they were conducting the investigation in Sampath murder case truthfully. It is also seen from the documents produced by them that on the basis of the materials collected by them, when the involvement of two higher IPS officers in the Police Department was revealed and they wanted to proceed against them, that irritated the higher police officials in the CBI Department as well as in the State Police Department and thereafter, they started harassing them and wanted to create evidence exculpating those two higher IPS officers and when they did not heed to their request, they were slowly removed from the work of investigation entrusted to them in that case even against the directions given by this court that the investigation team should not be changed without getting permission from this Court. Further, the first petitioner was removed from the position of Chief Investigating Officer and in his place, Sri.Haridath was appointed. After Haridath was appointed, they were not allowed to participate in the investigation process. It is also seen from the documents produced that late Haridath was subjected to severe mental torture by the higher officials and this was reflected in one of the reports submitted by him before this Court filed in connection with Sampath custody murder case. After Haridath was appointed, they were not allowed to participate in the investigation process. It is also seen from the documents produced that late Haridath was subjected to severe mental torture by the higher officials and this was reflected in one of the reports submitted by him before this Court filed in connection with Sampath custody murder case. The recording of statements of higher police officials, namely, Smt.Shyni IPS, former SP, CBI, ACB and Sri.Abdul Khayyum, is not against any rules as they were collecting evidence, in case it is necessary to produce them before any authority if any action was taken against them in connection with this case. When they were harassed and transferred to distant places with ulterior motives, they filed petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, questioning the same in which they have mentioned these facts and the statements made by them in their petition before the judicial authority is protected by absolute privilege and that cannot be taken as a ground to vindicate them in any proceedings. Further, in the earlier petition questioning the transfer, in the counter statement filed by them, nothing was mentioned about the proposed action of initiating proceedings against them. Further, it is after the disposal of the petition filed questioning the transfer by the Administrative Tribunal and during the pendency of the petition filed against that order before this Court that the order of suspension was passed and memo of charges was issued. That shows mala fides on the part of the respondents. Further, the allegations mentioned in the memo of charges are vague, without any materials and that also will go to show that those memo of charges were issued without application of mind, in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Since this Court has found that the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the petitioners, the authorities were not justified in even intending to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Since this Court has found that the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the petitioners, the authorities were not justified in even intending to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Further, some of the charges raised by them regarding non-production of the case diary file when they were withdrawn from the investigation and the delay in producing the same, which are happened in 2010 and the reasons were explained, when memos were issued earlier, and they were under the impression that they were closed and to their surprise, that was also projected as a charge against them in the memo of charges issued in the year 2012 which also shows the mala fides on the part of the respondents initiating disciplinary proceedings, harassing the officers having high integrity in the Department to vindicate their vengeance as they were not amenable for changing their attitude to fabricate evidence to exculpate the two IPS officers involved in the case. So, since the entire things have started with malice and to harass the police officers having good reputation and integrity in the Department, this court has power to interfere, exercising the power of judicial review and grant relief to the petitioners to protect their interest. 13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents argued that as far as the transfer is concerned, it was found by the Tribunal that there is no mala fides and no violation of the norms in passing the order has been established and as such, the Tribunal found that the transfer was necessitated in public interest when the name of the petitioners were figured in the crime registered in respect of the suicide case of late Haridath and that need not be interfered with but there was some observations made that if the petitioners join duty in their respective places and apply for leave for the period of their absence, that should not be dismissed, but has to be considered favourably. But, instead of complying with that direction, the petitioners filed OP(CAT) No.2314/12 before this court. They have not even now complied with that direction. But, instead of complying with that direction, the petitioners filed OP(CAT) No.2314/12 before this court. They have not even now complied with that direction. They have not complied with the direction and it was revealed from the statements made by them in the petition filed before the Tribunal, certain aspects were brought to the notice of the Department and some of the allegations and statements made in the petition will amount to misconduct on the part of the petitioners. Further, they have made unnecessary defamatory allegations against the higher officials and even the investigation progress in Haridath suicide case by the Crime Branch will go to show that the letter alleged to have been found from the body of the deceased Haridath was in the handwriting of Haridath himself and that was examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and not by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi or from the laboratory attached to the CBI Headquarters at New Delhi. So, the allegation that the letter was concocted one or it was forced to be written by Haridath under the coercion and influence of the higher officials of the CBI is not correct. However, since those are all matters to be considered by the Court which has to be dealt with the same, it is not proper for the Department to agitate the genuineness or otherwise of the same before this Court or this Court going into the allegations in the application filed by them questioning the order of transfer and initiating proceedings against them for misconduct. 14. Further, the learned Additional Solicitor General also argued that the second petition is a premature one and the suspension was made in accordance with law and as per norms as they have not joined duty and they were unauthorisedly absent for a long time. The petitioners have not exhausted their remedy of filing an appeal before the immediate higher authorities as provided under Rule 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1961. Sub-Rule (5) thereof says that an order of suspension made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority which may or deem to have been made the order or any authority to which that authority is subordinate. Further, Rule 14 of the said Rules provides for an appeal against the order of suspension before the immediate higher authorities. Further, Rule 14 of the said Rules provides for an appeal against the order of suspension before the immediate higher authorities. So, without exhausting that remedy, they have approached the Tribunal and also this Court. Further, the Tribunal has also found that there were no grounds made out of any violation of the norms or mala fides and the Tribunal did not go into the question regarding the propriety of the suspension order, but only found that if the suspension period is over and if the authority wants to extend the period of suspension then, they must pass speaking orders stating reasons and the headquarters of enquiry has to be shifted to Kerala so as to enable the petitioners to make their defence properly and that will avoid unnecessary expenses to the exchequer as well and accordingly, even without applying for such a shifting of place of enquiry, the Department had favourably done this to the petitioners to enable them to make their defence effectively and also to participate in the proceedings and conduct their case most efficiently. That will go to show that there was no mala fides or malice on the part of the Department in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. Further, it is settled law that courts should be restrained from exercising judicial review in such administrative actions of the Departments, unless it is satisfied that there was unreasonableness or want of application of mind or there is malice in initiating proceedings or it was arbitrarily decided. Though there is some mistake though not admitted in mentioning the provision of law by which the act of the petitioners will amount to misconduct, the allegations are clear and that will go to show that the allegations are not vague. Further, most of the accusations made against the petitioners are admitted by them in their explanation, but they only wanted to justify their conduct. Whether that explanation is acceptable or not etc are all matters to be considered by the disciplinary tribunal constituted by the Department, to go into the allegations of charges made against the petitioners and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the administrative action taken by the Department. Whether that explanation is acceptable or not etc are all matters to be considered by the disciplinary tribunal constituted by the Department, to go into the allegations of charges made against the petitioners and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the administrative action taken by the Department. Each allegation will go to show that the conduct of the petitioners is against the norms of the CBI Manual and violation of those guidelines in the Manual will amount to misconduct on the part of the Officers and the Department is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. He further submitted that due to some reasons of pendency of this proceedings, the enquiry could not be completed within time as directed by the Tribunal and in case the petitions are dismissed, he prays for extension of time for the enquiry tribunal to complete the enquiry and submit the report. The order of this Court quashing the proceedings in Haridath's case against the petitioners was questioned by the State before the Honourable Supreme Court as SLP (Crl) No.1330/13 and the Honourable Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, permitted the investigating agency to continue with the investigation, but directed not to file the final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till the disposal of the case. It is also observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that respondents 1 and 2 in that application, who are the petitioners herein, were given an opportunity to file a regular/anticipatory bail application and in case such an application is filed, the competent court will consider the matter in accordance with law. So, it cannot, now, be said that the petitioners were exonerated in connection with Haridath's case as claimed by them as the investigation has been permitted to be continued in the matter, by the Honourable Supreme Court. Even assuming that the criminal proceedings are ended in acquittal, it is not a bar for the Department to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against them, it is submitted. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the petitions and he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 15. Before going into the facts of the case, it will be apposite to consider the precedents on this aspect. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the petitions and he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 15. Before going into the facts of the case, it will be apposite to consider the precedents on this aspect. In the decision reported in Transport Commissioner, Madras v. A.Radhakrishna Moorthy (1995) 1 SCC 332 ), it has been held that the truth and correctness of the charges was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into, more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. Even when the matter comes to the Tribunal after imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations/charges except in a case where they are based on no evidence, i.e, where they are perverse. The jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has power of judicial review. It only examines the procedural correctness of the decision making process. For this reason, the order of the Tribunal, insofar as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in law. In the same decision, it has been held that if there is grievance against the vagueness of charges, ordinarily, direction for particularising the charges and then proceeding with the enquiry would have been given. 16. In the decision reported in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508 ), it has been held that the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal should not, normally, interfere with the transfer order passed by the Government, using the power of judicial review, unless mala fide is proved or it is passed by an incompetent authority. In the same decision, it has been held that more over, without cancelling the transfer order, merely temporarily accommodating at the existing place an employee who was not willing to join at the new place was held to lead to an inference of non-existence of the transfer order. It is also observed in the same decision that mere omission on the part of the bank authorities to proceed against the delinquent employee under paragraph 8.34(a) of Chapter VIII of the State Bank of India Handbook of Staff Matters, could not justify the conclusion that the said employee was not unauthorisedly absent from duty. It is also observed in the same decision that mere omission on the part of the bank authorities to proceed against the delinquent employee under paragraph 8.34(a) of Chapter VIII of the State Bank of India Handbook of Staff Matters, could not justify the conclusion that the said employee was not unauthorisedly absent from duty. In the same decision, it has been observed that an order of transfer of an employee is part of service conditions and such an order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. 17. In the decision reported in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1983) 3 SCC 344 ), it has been observed that Supreme Court cannot in a petition against police inaction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, determine whether it was a case of murder or suicide. Only the proper court can investigate into that question. 18. In the decision reported in Mathura Prasad v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 437 ), it has been held that judicial review would lie if there is an error of law apparent on the face of record in case of non-application of mind by the statutory authority or exercise of power of statutory authority in a manner not provided for in the statute. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial review. 19. In the decision reported in Vikraman Nair v. State of Kerala (Chief Secretary) (2008) 4 ILR Kerala 395), it has been held that if victimisation is discernible from the facts of the case or if the suspension is arbitrary or illegal, interference in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is justified and warranted. In the same decision, it has been observed relying on the decision in Surendran v. Government of Kerala (2008) 3 KHC 738) that suspension of an employee pending disciplinary enquiry and departmental enquiry is not automatic but it is discretionary. The object of placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry is to enable the administration to conduct the proceedings smoothly so as to establish the allegations or charge against that employee. The object of placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry is to enable the administration to conduct the proceedings smoothly so as to establish the allegations or charge against that employee. The appointing authority or the disciplinary authority while considering whether an employee should be placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and departmental enquiry should certainly consider the seriousness of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of the materials placed before such authority. It must be on proper application of mind that the disciplinary authority should decide on the question of suspension. The order of suspension cannot be issued merely as an administrative routine or as automatic following the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The suspension must be a stop in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry. Public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry is also a matter which the authority concerned should bear in mind while deciding whether the delinquent employee must be placed under suspension. The decision reported in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar (2008(3) KHC 738) was also relied on in the said decision. 20. The scope of judicial review in service matters has been considered in the decision reported in State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 ). 21. In the decisions reported in Bachan Singh v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 161 ), State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (2004) 6 SCC 584 ) and Delhi Development Authority v. UEE Electricals Engineering (P) Ltd (2004) 11 SCC 213), it has been held that while exercising the power of judicial review, it is directed against the decision making process and not the decision itself and it should not act as a court of appeal. Further, it has been observed in these cases that the burden of proving mala fides is on the person alleging the same by adducing evidence and it cannot be based on surmises, assumptions and presumptions alone. In order to arrive at improper motive or mala fides, surrounding factors which precede the order can be considered. The court will interfere only if there is infirmity in the decision making process and not in the decision itself. In order to arrive at improper motive or mala fides, surrounding factors which precede the order can be considered. The court will interfere only if there is infirmity in the decision making process and not in the decision itself. If there is no infirmity in the decision making process and it is in conformity with the law or the statute, even if there is some defect in the decision, it will not interfere by exercising the doctrine of judicial review. 22. In the decision reported in Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board (2012) 1 SCC 157 ), it has been held that to be termed as arbitrary and capricious, action must be illegible and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation where a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion, ignoring rules, procedure or law and said action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact, it is said to be arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. 23. In the decision reported in Rt. Rev. B.P.Sugandhar Bishop in Medak v. D.Dorothyayasheela Ebeneser (1996) 4 SCC 406 ), it has been held that when terms of reference served also on the delinquent employee to enable her to submit her explanation so that the same might be considered along with the Commissioner's report before taking a decision for instituting a regular enquiry, in such circumstances, the order of appointment of the Enquiry Commission is beyond the scope of judicial review. 24. In Punjab State Electricity Board v. Zora Singh (2005) 6 SCC 776 ), it has been held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that even if an order is found to be not vitiated by reason of malice on fact, that still can be held to be invalid if the same has been passed for unauthorised purposes, as it would amount to malice in law. In the same decision, relying on the decision reported in S.R.Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 ) and Shearer v. Shields (1914 AC 808), it has been observed that a person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so, with an innocent mind. He is taken to know the law and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently. Malice in its legal sense, means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probable cause. In the same decision, relying on the decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003)4 SCC 739 ) it has been observed that the legal meaning of malice is 'ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action.' This is sometimes described as 'malice in fact'. Legal malice or malice in law means something done without lawful excuse. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. 25. In the decision reported in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (2005) 8 SCC 760), the question regarding burden of proof regarding mala fides has been discussed and it has been observed as follows : "The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. He who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose , or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. While the indirect motive or purpose , or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Mala fides is the last refuge of a losing litigant. The courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration." 26. In the decision reported in S.Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1973 (II) LLJ 473 ), the Honourable Apex Court has considered as to what amounts to bias and it was held as follows : "The test of likelihood of bias which has been applied in a number of cases is based on the reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man fully cognisant of the facts. In R.v. Camborne, JJ., ex P.Pearce (supra) after a review of the relevant cases, it has been held that the real likelihood of bias was the proper test and that the real likelihood of bias had to be made to appear not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining but from such further facts as might readily be ascertained and verified in the course of his inquiries. As there was real likelihood of bias in the sense explained above, the inquiry and the orders based on the inquiry were bad." 27. As there was real likelihood of bias in the sense explained above, the inquiry and the orders based on the inquiry were bad." 27. In the decision reported in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant ( 2001(1) LLJ 583 ), the Honourable Supreme Court, after considering as to what is the principle of the doctrine of natural justice and how it can be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case, described as follows : "Since the decision of this Court in Kraipak's case A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 : ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) one golden rule that stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. What, however, does this doctrine exactly mean? Lord Reid about four decades ago in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40 very succinctly described it as not being capable of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances - who then is a reasonable man - the man on the clapham omnibus ? In India, however, a reasonable man cannot but be a common man similarly placed. The effort of Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin (supra) in not attributing a definite meaning to the doctrine but attributing it to be representing a fair procedure still holds good even in the millennium year. As a matter of fact this Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1973) 1 SCC 380 : ( AIR 1973 SC 389 ) upon reliance on the attributes of the doctrine as above stated as below (at pp. 393 and 394 of AIR) : "8. The second question, however, as to what are the principles of natural justice that should regulate an administrative act or order is a much more difficult one to answer. We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straightjacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straightjacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. See, for instance, the observations of Lord Parker in Re H. K. (an infant) (1967) 2 QB 617. It only means that such measure of natural justice should be applied as was described by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin case (1964-AC 40) (supra) as "insusceptible of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances". However, even the application of the concept of fair-play requires real flexibility. Every thing will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of a case. As Tucker, LJ observed in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109 : "The requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with and so forth." 28. In the decision reported in Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee Dr.Hari Ram (Co-ed) Higher Secondary School ( 1993(II) LLJ 549 ), it has been held that there are a number of decisions where the application of the principles of natural justice in the decision making process of administrative body having civil consequences has been upheld by this Court. In the same decision, it has been observed that even if the plea of bias is taken for the first time in the writ petition, if it goes to the root of the matter, then, it can be allowed to be taken even at that stage. 29. In the same decision, it has been observed that even if the plea of bias is taken for the first time in the writ petition, if it goes to the root of the matter, then, it can be allowed to be taken even at that stage. 29. In the decision reported in State of Punjab v. V.K.Khanna ( AIR 2001 SC 343 ), it has been observed as follows : "The concept of fairness in administrative action has been the subject matter of considerable judicial debate but there is total unanimity on the basic element of the concept to the effect that the same is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the Court and no straight jacket formula can be evolved therefor. As a matter of fact, fairness is synonymous with reasonableness. And on the issue of ascertainment of meaning of reasonableness, common English parlance referred to as what is in contemplation of an ordinary man of prudence similarly placed -it is the appreciation of this common man's perception in its proper perspective which would prompt the Court to determine the situation as to whether the same is otherwise reasonable or not." 30. In the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Anoop Kumar (2005(3) KLT 904), it has been observed that in writ jurisdiction, this Court is not justified in substituting its wisdom by stipulating a condition which it thinks fair and reasonable. This Court has relied on the decision reported in Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Limited ( 2004(4) SCC 19 ) where the Apex Court examined the scope of judicial review with regard to the conditions stipulated in the tender notifications and held as follows : "It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide." 31. In the decision reported in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar (2011) 10 SCC 249 ), it has been held that the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. W here findings of the competent authority are based on some evidence, High Court does not re- appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion invoking the power of judicial review. 32. In the decision reported in Union of India Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 357 ), it has been held that the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles, norms and constraints which apply to the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal and in the cases of charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry, the Tribunal or Court can interfere only with the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of charges if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be, following the decision in H.B.Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal v. Gopi Nath & Sons (1992 Supp.(2) SCC 312). 33. In the decision reported in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 9 SCC 15 ), it has been observed that it is trite law that High Court should not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is found that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent was impermissible in law or disproportionate to the misconduct found to have been committed by the delinquent officer and shocks the conscience of the Court. 34. In the decision reported in Krushnakant. B.Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178 ), it has been held that if the delinquent officer has been found to be unauthorisedly absent and that will amount to misconduct, on the allegation of failure to maintain devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and for sustaining such allegation, it must be proved that the unauthorised absence was wilful. If the absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful and the employee guilty of misconduct. 35. In the decision reported in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 ), it has been held that while applying the doctrine of judicial review, the Court is reviewing the decision making process and not the decision itself. Judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. Judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But, that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact nor evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts. W here appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of that case. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of that case. The Honourable Supreme Court has relied on the following decisions to arrive at such a conclusion : Union of India v. H.C.Goel ( AIR 1964 SC 364 ), Union of India v. S.I.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 ), Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P.Vora (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 551), State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 2 SCC 537 ). Further, in the same decision, it has been observed by majority that High Court/Tribunal in the exercise of the power under review, cannot normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary/appellate authority except where it shocks judicial conscience in which case, it can mould relief either by directing the authority to reconsider the punishment/penalty imposed or in exceptional cases, by itself imposing an appropriate punishment recording cogent reasons. In the same decision, it has been further held that the question whether the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is an unfair procedure, depriving livelihood of a public servant, offending Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India, would depend upon the facts of each case. 36. In the decision reported in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya ( 2011(4) SCC 584 ), it has been held that while applying the doctrine of judicial review of findings of disciplinary authority, courts will not interfere except where findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test of perversity i.e., whether the authority concerned could have reasonably arrived at such a conclusion or finding, based on materials on record is to be applied. Courts will interfere if the principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. The following decisions have been relied on in the said decision: B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 ), Union of India v. G.Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 ), Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762 ) and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant.S.Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 ). The following decisions have been relied on in the said decision: B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 ), Union of India v. G.Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 ), Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762 ) and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant.S.Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 ). In the same decision, it has been held that subsequent acquittal by criminal court will not, in any way, render completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect validity of finding of guilt or consequential punishment. It has been further held in the said decision that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in two proceedings that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. 37. In the decision reported in State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740 ), it has been held that the charge sheet need not contain details of documents or names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove charges unless there is a specific provision to that effect. The charge sheet is not expected to be a record of evidence. Further, in the same decision, it has been held that fair procedure does not mean giving copies of documents or list of witnesses along with charge sheet though statement of allegations has to accompany charge sheet when required by Service Rules. In the same decision, it has been held that disciplinary authority is expected to prove charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that High Court, on facts, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged enquiry, especially, when the service rules provide for an alternate remedy of appeal. It is also held in the said decision that High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as an appellate authority, though its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correction of an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. It is also held in the said decision that High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as an appellate authority, though its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correction of an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. In the absence of any procedural irregularity having been committed either by the Bank, presenting officer or enquiring authority, High Court was not justified in interfering with the dismissal order passed in disciplinary proceedings. 38. In the decision reported in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. K.S.Swaminathan (1996) 11 SCC 498 ), it has been held as follows : "It is settled law by a catena of decisions of this Court that if the charge memo is totally vague and does not disclose any misconduct for which the charges have been framed, the Tribunal or the Court would not be justified at that stage to go into whether the charges are true and could be gone into, for it would be a matter on production of the evidence for consideration at the enquiry by the enquiry officer. At the stage of framing the charge, a statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are required to be looked into by the court or the tribunal as to the nature of the charges i.e., whether the statement of facts and material in support thereof supplied to the delinquent officer would disclose the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal, therefore, was totally unjustified in going into the charges at that stage. It is not the case that the charge memo and the statement of facts do not disclose any misconduct alleged against the delinquent officer. Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in quashing the charge memo." 39. In the decision reported in B.K.Kalra v. Punjab National Bank (Delhi) (2006(4) SLR 433), it has been held that the challenge against a charge sheet issued against the delinquent is a premature one and issuing a second charge sheet when the first charge sheet was vague, is not legal and since no punishment order has been imposed, writ petition challenging charge sheet is a premature one. 40. 40. In the decision reported in Government of India v. George Philip (2006) 13 SCC 1), it has been observed that considering the nature of job in the Atomic Centre where costly equipments may become obsolete in case of long absence of Scientist handling the same, the punishment of compulsory retirement is not disproportionately harsh. In the same decision, it has been observed that discipline and devotion to duty must be maintained by the employees so as to achieve the mandate of Article 51A(j) of the Constitution. Courts should not pass such orders which may negate or destroy the underlying spirit of Part IV-A of the Constitution instead of achieving the same. It is further observed in the same decision that there are several decisions of this Court where the order of the disciplinary authority directing removal or dismissal of an employee on the ground of long absence or over-stay of leave has been upheld. Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 309 ), Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. N.B.Narawade (2005) 3 SCC 134 ), Bharat Forge Co.Ltd v. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005) 2 SCC 489 ), Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 574 ), Union of India v. Khulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 SCC 228 ) and State of Rajasthan v. Mohd.Ayub Naz (2006) 1 SCC 589 ) are some of the decisions mentioned in the said case, on that aspect. 41. In the decision reported in Omkumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 ), it has been observed as follows : "71. Thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questioned as 'arbitrary' under Art. 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. The Court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Art. 14 applies in such a context. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the Administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the Administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, and in such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment." 42. In the decision reported in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10SCC 84), it has been held that courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or it suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Courts would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Courts should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. 43. In the decision reported in Gopalankutty Nair v. Sankunny Ezhuthassan ( 1971 KLT 393 ), it has been found by majority decision that the statements made by the defendant in the petition he presented to the Magistrate and in the copy thereof, which he presented to the Sub Inspector of Police, are both absolutely privileged as it has been submitted as a step in the proceedings before the Magistrate to pursue his legal remedy. 44. In the decision reported in Daniel v. Hymavathy Amma ( 1985 KLT 574 ), it has been observed that when participating in a judicial proceeding, persons concerned must be able to devote their entire attention to the conduct of the proceedings, be they Judges, counsel, parties or witnesses. At every stage, they should not be compelled to pause and analyse the absolute relevancy of the statements they proposed to make in the course of proceedings ; to insist that they should do so, would seriously hamper and weaken judicial process. At the same time, statements which are absolutely irrelevant or are made de hors the matter in hand or have no reference to the matter of enquiry cannot be privileged. At the same time, statements which are absolutely irrelevant or are made de hors the matter in hand or have no reference to the matter of enquiry cannot be privileged. It must always be borne in mind that in deciding whether a statement has reference to the matter of enquiry, the widest and most comprehensive interpretation must be given. 45. In the decision reported in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 493 ), it has been held that the bar against production or use in evidence of statements made before a Police Officer in the course of investigation or a case diary prepared by the Police Officer, would not apply where courts call for such statements or case diary in a civil proceedings or in a proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, provided the statement or case diary is otherwise relevant under the Evidence Act. 46. In the decision reported in Mukund Lal v. Union of India & Mohinder Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 144 ), it has been held that the denial to the accused of an unfettered right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless of whether these entries are used by the police officer concerned to refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the Court has used these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Under sub-section (2) of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The Legislature has reposed complete trust in the Court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the Court to call for any such relevant case diary and if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary, the Court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as provided in sub-section 3 of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of justice than the Court trying the case. Ultimately, there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of justice than the Court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the power to make use of the entries in the diary to the advantage of the accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents of the diaries. In view of this safeguard, it cannot be said that unless an unfettered right is conferred and recognised, the embargo engrafted in sub- section (3) of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would fail to meet the test of reasonableness. In the same decision, it has been observed that Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure embodies a composite scheme. The duty cast under Clause (1) and the rider added by Clause (3) thereof form integral part of the scheme. Clause (3) cannot be struck down in isolation whilst retaining clause (1). The Legislature, in its wisdom, has cast this obligation only subject to the rider. Clause (3) cannot be viewed in isolation. 47. In the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable (1992) 4 SCC 54 ), it has been observed that even a single act of misconduct, if found to be of gravest nature having regard to its quality, insidious effect and gravity of situation in the attending circumstances, may justify dismissal impinging upon pensionary rights after putting long length of service. The word act includes single act as well. In the same decision, it has been observed that the word misconduct, though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. 48. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. 48. In the decision reported in Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan (2011) 13 SCC 541), it has been held that breach of discipline by the respondent was indicative of his contempt for rules which was bound to have a serious adverse impact on the administration. Besides, gravity of his misconduct acquired serious dimension by the subsequent misconduct. The said two episodes of absence from duty in immediate succession were so interlinked that the disciplinary authorities had every right to take note of it while determining the gravity of the misconduct. 49. In the decision reported in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 ), it has been held that where Executive also fails to fill up the gap in the legislation, the Judiciary must step in and provide a solution, till the Legislative Acts cover the field. It is further observed in the said decision that everyone against whom there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, has to be treated equally and similarly under the law and probity in public life is of great significance. The constitution and working of the investigating agencies revealed the lacuna of its inability to perform whenever powerful persons were involved. For this reason, a close examination of the constitution of these agencies and their control assumes significance. No doubt, the overall control of the agencies and responsibility of their functioning has to be in the executive, but then, a scheme giving the needed insulation from extraneous influences even of the controlling executive, is imperative. It is this exercise which became necessary in these proceedings for the future. This is the surviving scope of these writ petitions. In the same decision, it has been held that while jurisdiction to confer power on CBI to investigate in respect of any offence or class of offences by issuing notification under Section 3 lies in Central Government ; exercise of power of investigation by CBI is governed by statutory provisions under the general law applicable to such investigations. That statutory power cannot be subjected to executive control. That statutory power cannot be subjected to executive control. General superintendence of Central Government is distinct from and does not extend to actual investigation of an offence. Central Government cannot issue executive instructions or directives, restraining CBI from initiating investigation against certain officers functioning at decision-making-level without obtaining prior sanction of the Government in absence of any such requirement under any provisions under Prevention of Corruption Act or DSPE Act or any other statute. The word "superintendence" in Section 4(1) cannot be construed in a wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by the CBI contrary to the manner provided by the statutory provisions. The broad proposition that it can issue any directive to the CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate an offence specified in the notification issued under Section 3 by a directive under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be accepted. In the same decision, it has been held that the ultimate responsibility for functioning of the investigating agency viz., CBI to Parliament lies in the Minister concerned. He cannot interfere with the course of investigation in individual cases. 50. In the decision reported in CBI, New Delhi v. Mohinder Singh (2004) 13 SCC 578 ), it has been held that the accused is entitled to have the entire set of documents which accompanied the final report filed under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the case diary can be used only by the court, subject to the restrictions under Sections 173(2) of the Code and the accused can have no claim to it. 51. In the decision reported in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592 ), it has been held that the transfer in administrative exigencies should not be interfered with by courts using the power of judicial review and employees transferred on the basis of non-existing facts was held to be malice in law. 52. In the decision reported in State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh (2010) 13 SCC 306 ), it has been held that considering the nature and purpose of territorial division of police administration in the State, the transfer of one person from one place to another within the territorial division are not absolutely prohibited. Police persons can be posted anywhere in the State. Police persons can be posted anywhere in the State. Such transfers, however, can be effected with the sanction of the authorities mentioned in Rule 12.6 of the Police Act, 1861. It is also observed in the same decision that the State's power to transfer police persons is purely an administrative function and courts should not interfere with pure administrative matters like transfers and postings except where it is absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right. The State Administration cannot function with its hands tied by Judiciary behind its back. 53. In the decision reported in Dr.P.Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2008) 6 SLR 428), it has been held that the transfer of a Government Servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post is an incident of service. Transfer from one place to another constitutes a condition of service. There is no right vested in a Government servant to continue at one station. No Government servant has any right to claim for being posted at any particular place. An order of transfer should not be interfered with by Courts invoking the discretionary power of judicial review unless it is mala fide or against service rules. 54. In the decision reported in Rajendra Chingaravelu v. R.K.Mishra (2010) 1 SCC 457 ), it has been held that premature disclosures or leakage to media in a pending investigation will jeopardise and impede further investigation and may allow real culprit to escape from law. It is held in the said decision that attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed. 55. In the decision reported in Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263 ), the Honourable Supreme had occasion to consider the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation and omissions on their part in conducting the investigation and the manner in which the doctors conducting the post mortem and examining the victims and giving their reports and considered great concern of such lapses that may affect the investigation itself, gave guidelines as to how these officials will have to do their duty while investigating the case. In the same decision, it has been observed that police service is a disciplined service and it requires maintenance and strict discipline and the Investigating Officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing the investigation. Police Officers and doctors by their profession are required to maintain duty decorum of high standards. The standards of investigation and the prestige of the profession are dependent upon the action of such specialised persons. Any lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation and doctors failing in their duty to bring out materials required would affect the genuineness of the investigation and that may affect even the justice delivery system and cause loss of confidence in the system in the mind of people. 56. In the decision reported in L.K.Verma v. HMT Ltd (2006) 2 SCC 269 ), it has been held that it is now well settled that things admitted need not be proved. Once the appellant accepted that he made utterances which admittedly lacked civility and he also threatened a superior officer, it was for him to show that he later on felt remorse therefor. In the same decision, it has been held that suspension is of three kinds. An order of suspension may be passed by way of punishment in conduct rules. An order of suspension can also be passed by the employer in exercise of its inherent power in the sense that it may not take any work from the delinquent officer but in that event, the entire salary is required to be paid. An order of suspension can also be passed if such a provision exists in the rules that in place of the full salary, the delinquent officer should be paid only the subsistence allowance specified therein. In the same decision, it is also held that High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a given case although may not entertain a writ petition, inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. In the same decision, it is also held that High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a given case although may not entertain a writ petition, inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite the existence of alternate remedy, a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the court or the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the Act is in question. Further, in the same decision, it has been held that in any event, once the writ petition has been entertained and determined on merit of the matter, the appellate court except in rare cases, would not interfere with only on the ground of existence of alternate remedy. 57. In the decision reported in Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer, Thandla (2003) 1 SCC 692 ), it has been held that if show cause notice was issued by an authority having jurisdiction to issue the same, the person should have participated in the enquiry after showing cause and a writ petition, challenging that show cause notice is a premature one and that cannot be entertained. 58. In the decision reported in Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab (1976) 3 SCC 361 ), it has been held that a writ petition filed against issuing show cause notice was premature as no punishment had been inflicted on the delinquent. 59. It is clear from the decisions cited supra that the doctrine of judicial review in administrative/service matters is restricted and it should be used sparingly only if it is satisfied that it was done with utmost arbitrariness with malice and mala fides and without application of mind and against reasonableness which is applicable to a common man who is placed in similar circumstances and the burden of proving all those things is on the person, who alleged the same. If any act is done by a person under authority, competent to issue such orders, if it is issued after application of mind, then, it should not, normally be interfered with by the High Court or the Tribunal by invoking the doctrine of judicial review. If any act is done by a person under authority, competent to issue such orders, if it is issued after application of mind, then, it should not, normally be interfered with by the High Court or the Tribunal by invoking the doctrine of judicial review. Further, in the case of transfers, if it is done under the Rules and passed by a person competent to issue the same, then, it should not normally be interfered with. In such cases, the officer has no right to insist for a transfer of his choice. Further, in the case of domestic enquiry, even if charges are vague and if allegations/accusations are there, constituting some offence or some sort of misconduct, the court or tribunal, by invoking the power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the same or sit in appeal against those aspects and it is not expected to consider whether the allegations are genuine or not. All those things are to be considered by the enquiry tribunal and even if the findings of the enquiry tribunal on the basis of evidence are against the delinquent officer, the court is not expected to interfere with the same invoking the power of judicial review. Court can interfere, only if there is no material to substantiate the same after enquiry and the finding of the enquiry officer was based on no evidence. Further, it is also settled law that if the order of suspension is not made as part of the punishment, but it was invoked with a view to protect public interest, then also, court should not intervene invoking the power of judicial review. That the charges issued are vague and witness list and documents were not produced along with the charge memo etc. are also outside the purview of the doctrine of judicial review, in view of the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra. With these principles in mind, the facts of the present case have to be considered. 60. That the charges issued are vague and witness list and documents were not produced along with the charge memo etc. are also outside the purview of the doctrine of judicial review, in view of the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra. With these principles in mind, the facts of the present case have to be considered. 60. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were working as Officers in the CBI and earlier, they were entrusted with the investigation of Sampath murder case and they were doing the investigation and at that time, it appears that during their investigation, according to them, it was revealed that two higher police officers of IPS cadre namely Vijay Sakhare and Mohammed Yassin, who were then working as Superintendents of Police at Palakkad and Additional Inspector General of Police, Thrissur respectively were also involved in the commission of the offence and they wanted to implicate them as accused along with some other accused persons. According to the petitioners, there was pressure from the higher ups to create evidence exculpating these officers for which they were not amenable. So, according to them, there was some strained relationship started between them and the higher officials in the Department and in order to minimize their involvement in the investigation process of that case, one Sri.Haridath was appointed as Chief Investigating Officer in the place of the first petitioner. According to them, the act of the Department was criticised by this court in the writ petition and an interlocutory application that was filed by the brother of the deceased and there was an observation by this Court that then investigation team should not be disturbed without the permission of this Court as per Annexures A5 and A6 produced along with Ext.P1. But, this was challenged by the Department before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court directed the Department to appoint a competent person to supervise the investigation. Accordingly, two persons were deputed for this purpose. After the arrival of those persons, the position was changed and according to the petitioners, they were actually harassing Haridath mentally, to change the evidence collected earlier including the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the involvement of the petitioners in the investigation was completely withdrawn from 1.4.2011 onwards. After the arrival of those persons, the position was changed and according to the petitioners, they were actually harassing Haridath mentally, to change the evidence collected earlier including the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the involvement of the petitioners in the investigation was completely withdrawn from 1.4.2011 onwards. In the meanwhile, Haridath committed suicide on 15.3.2012 and based on a suicide note, alleged to have been written by Haridath, wherein the names of these petitioners and one senior advocate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate were mentioned, a crime was registered originally for unnatural death and subsequently, the petitioners were implicated as accused in that case. It is on that basis that earlier, they had issued the transfer orders, transferring the petitioners to Calcutta and Guwahati respectively as per Annexure A9 in respect of the first petitioner and similar order in respect of the second petitioner and thereafter, they were relieved from their Thiruvananthapuram office as per Annexures A10 and A11 orders produced along with Ext.P1. This was challenged by them by filing a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal as OA No.340/12 and by Annexure A12 order dated 6.7.2012 produced along with Ext.P1 in OP(CAT) No.568/13, the Tribunal found that there was no mala fides or malice established by the petitioners in passing the order and it was not established by them that it was passed against any of the specified norms and there was no violation of such Rules and confirmed the transfer orders, explaining the decisions reported in Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 15 SCC 178 ), wherein it has been observed that it is well settled that an order of transfer is amenable to judicial review on limited grounds namely, it is contrary to Rules and has been passed by an incompetent authority or is the result of mala fide and also Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592 ), wherein it was observed that indisputably, an order of transfer is an administrative order and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds, one malice in fact and the second, malice in law. Mala fide is of two kinds, one malice in fact and the second, malice in law. The Tribunal also explained the decision in Najamal Hussain Mehadi v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 SCC 532 ) and observed as follows : "Yet another aspect is that the applicants have not joined the new duty stations, hoping that their case would be decided expeditiously and their move depends upon the decision of the Tribunal. The case would have been decided slightly earlier, but for the fact that there has been certain inadvertent omission on the part of the Tribunal in issuing notice to the private parties, which has compelled to defer the case by at least three weeks. In all expectation, the applicants would have applied for leave for the intervening period. Even if they have not so far done, on their joining the new duty stations, if they apply for leave for the period they did not attend the office, the authorities may not reject their application, but sympathetically consider the same." 61. But strangely, the petitioners did not comply with the same and they did not join duty as directed in the order. On the other hand, they challenged the same by filing OP(CAT) No.2314/12 before this Court and they have not joined duty so far. It is also seen from the objections filed that they had filed applications for leave on medical grounds and when the first petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board, he withdrew his leave application. The order of the Tribunal can be interfered with by this Court only if the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and against the principles of law, invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the Tribunal has considered all the objections and come to the conclusion that the matters which were alleged regarding the investigation of the suicide case of Haridath or Sampath murder case are all outside the purview of the Tribunal and those matters have to be considered by the courts before which they are pending and the Tribunal has rightly made the observation that a tribunal is not expected to go into those aspects in the petition filed by the petitioners against the transfer orders. 62. Further, there is no dispute that the transfer orders were issued by the competent authority. 62. Further, there is no dispute that the transfer orders were issued by the competent authority. It cannot be said that the transfer order is not issued in public interest, especially when there was some evidence in the form of a suicide note allegedly prepared by late Haridath, who committed suicide, which prompted the investigating agency in that case to implicate the present petitioners as accused in that case and the genuineness of the note has to be considered by the investigating agency and ultimately by the court which has to try the case. It is true that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were quashed by this Court as per Ext.P7 order and the order of this Court was challenged by the State and CBI before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Supreme Court as per the order in the petitions for special leave to appeal (criminal) Nos.1330/13 dated 22.3.2013, after hearing the learned counsel both both parties including the present petitioners, passed the following order : "Respondents are already represented. There is no necessity of issuing notice to them. The investigation of the case may continue, but a report as contemplated under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall not be filed. Respondents 1 and 2 are given liberty to file applications for regular/anticipatory bail. In case such applications are filed, the court shall consider the same in accordance with law." So, the order quashing the criminal proceedings has, now, been allowed to continue by the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said at present that there is no criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners as claimed by them so as to exonerate them from the allegation of their involvement in the criminal case relating to the suicide of Haridath. 63. The reasons stated by the authorities who issued the transfer orders in respect of the petitioners is that since it has been alleged that the petitioners have got some involvement in the suicide of Haridath, they have been implicated as accused in the criminal case registered in respect of the same, in order to ensure fair and smooth investigation and to avoid interference of the petitioners in the progress of the investigation and in public interest, they have been transferred. The Tribunal has also found that the reasons stated by them are just and proper. The Tribunal has also found that the reasons stated by them are just and proper. The Tribunal has further found that there was no malice either in fact or in law or any mala fides established by the petitioners in making the order. Further, the petitioners have no case that the transfer orders were issued by an incompetent authority or that their post is not a transferable post or that the transfer was against any of the established transfer norms. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the transfer was proper and it does not call for any interference. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. The Tribunal has, in fact, showed some leniency in favour of the petitioners, asking them to join duty and after joining, if they apply for leave for the period they were out of office due to the pendency of the proceedings, that has to be favourably considered by the Department and it should not be rejected. But, the petitioners have not exercised that option, but approached this Court, dissatisfied with the order of transfer. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dismissing OA No.340/12 filed by the petitioners challenging the legality of the transfer orders issued against them. 64. As far as the suspension orders issued against them and also the memo of charges are concerned, the Tribunal has found that since the period of suspension has exceeded 3 months, unless it is extended by the authority, it has no effect and in case they want to extend the same, they must pass appropriate orders with reasons. The Tribunal has also found that the memo of charges against them cannot be said to be vague as such and the reasons stated for quashing the memo of charges are all relating to certain acts alleged to have been done by the petitioners in the process of investigation conducted by them in Sampath murder case and they are matters to be considered by the concerned court. 65. 65. But, according to the counsel for the petitioners, the manner in which they conducted the investigation is perfectly in the right direction and that was appreciated by this Court in the writ proceedings filed in respect of the same by the brother of deceased Sampath and it was even appreciated by the Department, by awarding cash award to the petitioners. When they found out the involvement of two IPS officers of higher level in the State Police and wanted to implicate them as accused in the case, the relationship between them and their higher ups strained and according to them, they were not amenable to change their views regarding the matter which was revealed in their investigation and as a part of victimisation, false charges have been framed against them and they have been suspended from service unnecessarily and as such, they are vitiated by malice and mala fides. 66. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the accusations are made with necessary particulars of the act committed and in fact, none of the allegations have been denied by the petitioners but, they tried to justify the same. Whether their justification is proper or not and whether that is sufficient to exonerate them from the memo of charges issued against them etc., are all matters to be considered by the enquiry officer on the basis of evidence. Further, since they did not obey the orders of the higher authorities and did not join duty and absented themselves from duty for a long time unauthorisedly, proceedings have been initiated against them and since their acts amount to insubordination and misconduct, allowing them to continue in service, pending enquiry, will affect the discipline of the Department and so, they have been suspended from service and it is part of the disciplinary action and not as part of punishment and as such, this Court cannot interfere with the same using the power of judicial review as it is beyond the scope of judicial review, especially, when the Tribunal found that there was no malice or mala fides established by the petitioners. 67. 67. It is an admitted fact that after the death of Haridath, a criminal case has been registered and the petitoners have been implicated as accused and pursuant to the same, they have been transferred to Guwahati and Calcutta respectively and they were relieved from their duty to enable them to join in their new places. It is also an admitted fact that instead of joining duty at the respective places, the petitioners moved the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the same, alleging mala fides. It is also an admitted fact that the Tribunal found that the petitioners have failed to prove mala fides or malice and also found that the transfer was effected in public interest to enable fair investigation in Haridath's suicide case, also observed that if the petitioners, after joining duty, applied for leave, then, the Department was directed to consider the same favourably and they should not reject the same as well and in spite of such a specific direction given, the petitioners did not join duty and they preferred a writ petition before this Court as OP(CAT) No.2314/12. This Court has not granted stay as well. Still, they did not join duty. 68. The apprehension projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if they go to Guwahati and Calcutta pursuant to the transfer orders, their life will be in danger and they will have to face the same situation as that. of Haridath, appears to be without any basis. Being a transferable job throughout India, the petitioners are bound to go to the places where they have been transferred and join duty. If such an apprehension is accepted as genuine, that will affect the integrity of the Department as such and it will be difficult for the Department to effect the transfer orders of the officers to distant places and that, in a way, affect their effective administration as well. So, the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if they join duty in the respective places, their lives will be in danger, cannot be accepted as a reason for their non-joining of duty in the respective places. 69. So, the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if they join duty in the respective places, their lives will be in danger, cannot be accepted as a reason for their non-joining of duty in the respective places. 69. They relied on some reports filed by their higher ups asking to provide protection to their life in the course of their investigation of Sampath murder case and that is not a ground to suspect the genuineness of the transfer orders made by the Department, when their names have been figured in the Haridath's alleged suicide case and it cannot be believed that the danger will continue in the respective places as well. 70. If they did not join duty and absented from duty, then, the Department is entitled to proceed against them for unauthorised absence as well. We are not making any comment on this aspect as it is a matter to be considered by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the explanations given by them regarding the same. 71. Further, the Tribunal has also found that since the period of suspension has been over by that time and unless it is extended, it has no value and directed the Department to consider whether the suspension is to be extended further and if so desired, pass appropriate orders with reasons and accordingly, by virtue of Exts.P9 and P10 orders in OP(CAT) No.568/12, the suspension has been extended. But, those orders, extending the period of suspension, have not been challenged by the petitioners. So, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suspension ordered by the authorities considering the circumstances of the case and conduct of the petitioners cannot be said to be vitiated by malice or mala fides. Further, under Rule, there is a remedy of appeal to the higher authority and such right has not been availed of by the petitioners as well as per Rule 8 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate) and Appeal Rules 1961. 72. Further, under Rule, there is a remedy of appeal to the higher authority and such right has not been availed of by the petitioners as well as per Rule 8 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate) and Appeal Rules 1961. 72. As regards the memo of charges are concerned, the following charge memo has been issued in respect of the first petitioner : "Charge No.1 : That on 20.12.2010, Shri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, stealthily and deceptively recorded the telephonic conversation with Smt.S.Shyni, IPS former SP, CBI, ACB, Cochin, with ulterior motives and without the knowledge of approval of the competent authority, thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby, violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.2 That on 26.12.2011, Shri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, stealthily and deceptively recorded the telephonic conversation with Shri.Abdul Khayyum with ulterior motives and unauthorisedly possessed the telephonic conversation and without the knowledge or approval of any competent authority, thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby violated Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge No.3 That Sri.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, has made false allegations and averments which are false, deceptive and dafamatory against Shri.Nandakumar Nair, former HOB, CBI, Trivandrum, Shri.S.K.Peshin, former SP, EO New Delhi, Shri.O.P.Galhotra, Joint Director CBI, New Delhi and Shri.Ashok Kumar, former Joint Director, CBI, Chennai, which are baseless and false, regarding the suicidal death or Shri.P.G.Haridath, ASP (late) thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.4 That Sri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of police, has unauthorisedly retained the copies of case diaries, in violation of the CBI Crime Manual, which is revealed as he quoted extensively the same in the Misc.Petition filed before the Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam dt.20.5.2012 and thereby made the contents of the Case Diary a public document and compromised with its privileged status, in violation of the CBI Crime Manual and thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.5 That Sri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police unauthorisedly kept the material objects handed over by experts of CFSL, New Delhi at Malampuzha, Palakkad from 19.9.2010 onwards, for more than 62 days nor took steps to despatch the material objects to the Honourable CJM, Ernakulam or CFSL, New Delhi, nor reported the non-deposit of MOS to the Court, in violation of the CBI Crime Manual and thereby did not so show devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.6 That Sri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, during the period 27.5.2010 to 3.12.2010, has included his personal opinion in the Case Diary, apart from the allegations against certain persons, which are not substantiated by any evidence and is in total violation of the instructions of the CBI Crime Manual Para No.11(i) which amounts to misconduct and thereby, violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.7 That Sri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of Police, who was transferred from CBI, SCB, Trivandrum to CBI, ACB, Kolkotta on dt.18.4.2012 has unauthorisedly absented himself from joining duty at CBI, ACB, Kolkotta and thereby committed misconduct, violating Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.8. That Sri.S.Unnikrishnan Nair, Inspector of police, misconducted himself by non-reporting the facts and caused insubordination and bypassed the laid down hierarchy and CBI Manual and thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." 73. As regards the second petitioner isconcerned, the charges levelled against him are asmentioned below : "Charge No.1 That on 7.1.2011, Shri.K.K.Rajan, then Sub Inspector of Police, stealthily and deceptively recorded the telephonic conversation with Sri.Ashok Kumar IPS, former JD & HOZ, CBI, Chennai with ulterior motives and without the knowledge or approval of the competent authority, thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of the CBI and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.2 That K.K.Rajan, Inspector of Police has made false allegations/averments which are false, deceptive and defamatory against Shri.Nandkumar Nair, former HOB, CBI, Trivandrum, Sri.S.K.Peshin, former SP, EO, New Delhi, Shri.O.P.Galhotra, Joint Director, CBI, New Delhi and Shri.Ashok Kumar, former Joint Director, CBI, Chennai which are baseless and false, regarding the suicidal death of Shri.P.G.Haridath, ASP (late) and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.3 That, Shri.K.K.Rajan, Inspector of Police has unauthorisely retained the copies of Case Diaries in violation of the CBI Crime Manual as it is revealed from the use of case diaries which are quoted extensively in the Misc.Petition filed before the Honourable CAT, Ernakulam d.t20.5.2012 and thereby made he contents of the case diary a public document and compromised with its privileged status, in violation of the CBI Crime Manual and thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.4 That Shri.K.K.Rajan, Inspector of Police, who was transferred from CBI, SCB, Trivandrum to CBI, ACB, Guwahati, on 18.4.2012, has unauthorisedly absented himself from joining duty at CBI, ACB, Guwahati and thereby committed misconduct, violating Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.5 That Shri.K.K.Rajan, Inspector of Police, bypassed the laid down hierarchy and the CBI Manual and misconducted himself by not reporting the facts and caused insubordination and bypassed the laid down hierarchy and CBI Manual and thereby committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of CBI and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." 74. It is also seen from the documents produced by the petitioners that the charge memos were accompanied with necessary imputations, supporting each charge along with the list of witnesses and the list of documents to be relied on by them in the course of enquiry. Those memo of charges were marked as Annexures A27 and A28 in Ext.P1 petition before the Tribunal and Exts.P29 and P30 are the explanations given by the petitioners to the memo of charges issued against them. On going through the explanation given by them, it can be seen that they have more or less admitted the imputations, but, they are claiming justifications for their acts. On going through the explanation given by them, it can be seen that they have more or less admitted the imputations, but, they are claiming justifications for their acts. So, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegations are without any basis and without any evidence. But, according to the petitioners, that will not amount to misconduct which requires a disciplinary action against them and they are trying to justify their act. So, the question whether the explanations are justifiable and they are sufficient to exonerate them and also whether the imputations which led to the charges are sufficient to attract misconduct dereliction of duty etc., are all matters to be considered by the enquiry tribunal on the basis of the evidence to be adduced. The mere fact that there was some delay in in initiating the proceedings, is not a ground to come to a conclusion that it was vitiated by malice or mala fides so as to quash them. Even if there is delay in initiating action and if they are to be tried along with other charges, the cause of action of which arose later, then, whether the delay in issuing the charges will be fatal or not, is to be considered by the Tribunal and not by the High Court at this premature stage. Even assuming that a wrong provision has been quoted in some of the charges alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is no proper application of mind as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. what is required is whether there are sufficient allegations supported by imputations to substantiate the charges and not other things. That alone has to be considered by the court at this stage. Further, the genuineness or truthfulness of the allegations mentioned in the memo of charges need not be considered by this Court at the stage of considering whether the doctrine of judicial review has to be applied to quash a charge memo as claimed by the petitioners. 75. Further, in this case, it is in a way admitted that on the basis of the memo of charges issued, an enquiry officer has been appointed and as directed by the Tribunal, the place of enquiry has been shifted to Thiruvananthapuram and the enquiry has already been stated. 75. Further, in this case, it is in a way admitted that on the basis of the memo of charges issued, an enquiry officer has been appointed and as directed by the Tribunal, the place of enquiry has been shifted to Thiruvananthapuram and the enquiry has already been stated. Under such circumstances, it is not proper for this court at this stage to invoke the power of judicial review to quash the charges issued, but it is only proper to allow the proceedings to continue and have its natural end so that the petitioners may be getting an opportunity to challenge the legality of the finding if any gone against them in the course of enquiry at a later stage. There is no allegation of any bias alleged against the enquiry officer as well in the peittion. So, at this stage, the initiation of proceedings by the petitioners to quash the proceedings is a premature one. Therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not interfering with the suspension order passed and also the memo of charges issued. No illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in this regard. 76. While disposing of OA No.684/12, the Tribunal has observed as follows : In the light of the above discussion, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take further action in the matter as per law and in case they decide to conduct an enquiry against the applicants, the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants shall be completed within six months from the date of this order failing which, the memo of charges shall stand dropped. If the applicants make a request within a month from the date of this order, for keeping their headquarters during the period of enquiry in Kerala, the same shall be granted forthwith. The competent authority shall review the order of suspension if they are still valid in the light of the observations made herein and if it is decided to continue the suspension, then, speaking orders, duly considering all the relevant aspects shall be passed and communicated to the applicants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." It is on the basis of this that Exts.P9 and P10 orders have been passed, extending the period of suspension of the petitioners. Further, it is seen from Exts.P9 and P10 orders that the suspension is extended for a further period of 90 days from 15.1.2013. It is now informed that the suspension orders have been extended upto 13.7.2013. It is also submitted at the time of further hearing that the Tribunal has directed the enquiry officer to conmplete the enquiry within 8 weeks. 77. We feel that there is no merit in these petitions to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to disturb the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal or to invoke Article 226 to exercise the power of judicial review to grant the reliefs claimed and the petitions are only to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Petitions are dismissed.