ORDER : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has called in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 11-8-2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur in Original Application No.203/00387/2020, by which the petitioner’s original application has been dismissed by the learned CAT finding no merit. Question involved: - 2. The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether the petitioner herein can be proceeded departmentally by holding a departmental inquiry and a criminal trial on the same set of facts? Factual backdrop: - 3. The aforesaid question arises on the following factual backdrop: - 4. While the petitioner was working as Senior Section Engineer (Safety) in South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, he was subjected to First Information Report (FIR) dated 18-9-2015 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that he has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- on 28-4-2015 from one Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for favouring him in the matter of violation of safety norms by him. Subsequently, the petitioner was also charge-sheeted being Charge Sheet No.6/2015 before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Raipur and trial commenced against him upon registration of Criminal Case No.1191/2015. Thereafter, on 24-9-2017, the petitioner was also subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memorandum of charges under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground that he has accepted illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms. Thereafter, on 20-4-2018, charges were framed against the petitioner and on 10-7-2018, the petitioner filed a representation based on the Railway Board Memorandum dated 1-8-2007 for staying the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of criminal trial which was accepted by the competent authority and orders dated 7-9-2018 & 6-8-2019 were passed finding merit and substance as well and disciplinary proceeding was stayed. However, on 17-2-2020, 25-2-2020 & 9-6-2020, the competent authority issued memo regarding continuation of departmental proceeding consequent to which the petitioner filed O.A. No.203/2020 before the CAT for keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal trial in which the learned CAT stayed the departmental proceeding on 5-8-2020, however, by the impugned order dated 11-8-2023, it has been vacated and the original application has been dismissed finding that no case is made out for staying the departmental proceeding against which this writ petition has been preferred. 5. Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating that on same set of facts, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding both can simultaneously continue and in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the charges in criminal trial/charge-sheet and memorandum of statement both are based one and same facts that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms, which Mr. Vijay Kumar has violated, the charges are one and same and as such, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another, (2016) 9 SCC 491 the trial deserves to be stayed for a particular period by granting the writ petition. 7. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India/respondents, would submit that it is not a hard & fast rule that if criminal trial and departmental proceeding are based on same facts, criminal proceeding has to be stayed for indefinite point of time, as charge-sheet was filed in the instant case on 24-9-2017 and the competent authority had already stayed the departmental proceeding on 7-9-2018/6-8-2019 and only in the year 2023, it was vacated as trial could not be concluded within reasonable time, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed affirming the order of the CAT. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to firstly notice relevant judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue where disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding can go on simultaneously on same facts of the case. 10. In the matter of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others, (1997) 2 SCC 699 a Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court pointing out the distinction between the purpose of the said criminal trial and departmental proceeding held that nature of evidence and standard of proof in the said two types of proceedings is entirely different. In that regard, for staying disciplinary proceeding in such cases, it is not desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer and each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. Relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 it has been held in paragraph 8 of the report as under: - “8. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence in violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and 338, IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings.” 11. Thereafter, in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down five parameters in this regard whether departmental proceedings can be simultaneously continued along with criminal proceedings by holding as under: - “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 12. Thereafter, in the matter of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously, the only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. Their Lordships further held that the interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. 13. Thereafter, in Neelam Nag’s case (supra), which relates to the case of State Bank of India, the Supreme Court has considered the earlier decisions in M.G. Vittal Rao’s case (supra) and B.K. Meena’s case (supra) and held as under: - “21. On the plain language of Clause 4, in our opinion, it is not a stipulation to prohibit the institution and continuation of disciplinary proceedings, much less indefinitely merely because of the pendency of criminal case against the delinquent employee. On the other hand, it is an enabling provision permitting the institution or continuation of disciplinary proceedings, if the employee is not put on trial by the prosecution within one year from the commission of the offence or the prosecution fails to proceed against him for want of any material. 22. As can be culled out from the last sentence of Clause 4, which applies to a case where the criminal case has in fact proceeded, as in this case, for trial. The term “completion of the trial” thereat, must be construed as completion of the trial within a reasonable time-frame. This clause cannot come to the aid of the delinquent employee–who has been named as an accused in a criminal case and more so is party to prolongation of the trial.” Finally, following direction has been made by their Lordships: - “27. This clause cannot come to the aid of the delinquent employee–who has been named as an accused in a criminal case and more so is party to prolongation of the trial.” Finally, following direction has been made by their Lordships: - “27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of Respondent 1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightaway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against Respondent 1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the date of this order. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight when necessary. 28. We also direct that Respondent 1 shall extend full cooperation to the trial court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the advocate appointed by her. 29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to Respondent 1 of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order.” 14. The principles of law laid down in Neelam Nag’s case (supra) have recently been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. P. Zadenga, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1240 and considering its all earlier decisions, their Lordships observed as under: - “15. As is evident from the judicial pronouncements referred to above, it may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings are ongoing; however, stay is not "a matter of course" and is only to be given after consideration of all factors, for and against. 16. As is evident from the judicial pronouncements referred to above, it may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings are ongoing; however, stay is not "a matter of course" and is only to be given after consideration of all factors, for and against. 16. Keeping in view Neelam Nag (supra), the following essentialities may be culled out for the operation of clause 4 – a. At least one year ought to have passed since attempts to get the delinquent employee prosecuted; b. If, after the passage of such time, no prosecution is initiated, then the department may proceed in accordance with its procedure for disciplinary action; c. If the prosecution commences later in point of time to the disciplinary proceedings, the latter shall be stayed, but not indefinitely. Such proceedings are to be stayed only for a reasonable period of time, which is a matter of determination per the circumstances of each case.” 15. Apart from this, there is an office memorandum R.B.E.No.128/2007 (Annexure A-4 filed before the CAT) issued by the Railway Board, which also speaks of simultaneous action of prosecution in a court and initiation of departmental proceedings, paragraph 2 of which states as under :- “2. What may be deduced from the above instructions is that in serious cases involving offences such as bribery/corruption, etc. action should be launched for prosecution as a matter of course. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in their various judgments, the important ones being, State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena 8, Others (1996.6.SCC 417), Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999.3 SCC 679), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. T. Srinivas ( 2004 (6) SCALE 467 ) and Noida Entrepreneurs Association V s. Noida (JT2007) (2) SC 620), that merely because a criminal trial is pending, a departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as is involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether district and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is quality of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against the Government servant are established and if established, what sentence can be imposed on him. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is quality of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against the Government servant are established and if established, what sentence can be imposed on him. In serious nature of cases like acceptance of illegal gratification, the desirability of continuing the concerned Government servant in service in spite of the serious charges levelled against him may have to be considered by the Competent Authority to proceed with departmental action.” 16. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid judgments (supra), it would be appropriate to notice the details of charges in criminal case and departmental proceeding, details of evidence/documents in criminal case and departmental proceeding and details of witnesses in criminal case and departmental proceeding which appear to be one and same from the pleadings and documents filed on behalf of the petitioner. The following table will reflect the details of charges in criminal case and departmental enquiry, which appear to be common in both criminal case and departmental enquiry: - DETAILS OF CHARGES IN CRIMINAL CASE AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY In Criminal Case FIR “16.23 the facts and circumstances narrated above clearly establish that Shri Rajiv Katiyar being a Public Servant, demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant Shri Vijay Kumar, for showing favour to him in the matter of alleged, violation of safety norms by him on 28.04.2015 a Gate BK-86 and thus he committed the offence punishable u/s 7 and 13 (2) rw 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988”. (Refer Page 75 of Paper Book) Charges framed by Criminal Court “Heard on charge. Investigation was carried out by the CBI in this case. The statement of witnesses and documents collected by the CBI in this case, prima facie reveals that accused Rajiv Katiyar while posted as Sr. Section Engineer (P/Way/Safety) S.E.C.R., Bilaspur C.G. had demanded illegal gratification 25000 Rs. From complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Assistant Loco Pilot, S.E.C.R. in favour of showing favour to complainant in the matter of alleged violation of safety norms and further agreed to accept bribe of Rs. 25,000/-. Section Engineer (P/Way/Safety) S.E.C.R., Bilaspur C.G. had demanded illegal gratification 25000 Rs. From complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Assistant Loco Pilot, S.E.C.R. in favour of showing favour to complainant in the matter of alleged violation of safety norms and further agreed to accept bribe of Rs. 25,000/-. In pursuance of this demand he further accepted illegal gratification of Rs 10000/- on 19.09.2015 other than legal remuneration as a motive for showing favour to complainant in the matter of alleged violation of safety norms.” (Refer Page 180 of Paper Book) In DE Statement of imputation of charges One FIR No. RC11242015A0007, U/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chhattisgarh Bhilai on 18.09.2015 against Shri Rajiv Katiyar, Sr. Section Engineer (P.Way)/Safety Counselor, Bilaspur Division, SECL Bilaspur (RUD-02), on the basis of written complaint dated 18.09.2015 of Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, South East Central Railway, Crew Point Shahdol under Bilaspur Division of SECR for alleged demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- for showing favour to the complainant in the matter of alleged safety norms violation committed by the complainant (RUD-01)” (Refer Page No. 89 of the Paper Book) 17. The petitioner herein in paragraph 4.6 of the original application filed before the CAT has detailed the description of documents in criminal case and departmental enquiry and even the details of witnesses in criminal case and departmental enquiry. Similar pleading has been made in paragraph 8.7 of the writ petition and while replying the aforesaid paragraph, the respondents have simply stated that the departmental enquiry is for violation of safety norms and the fact of bribery has to be seen by the CBI Court. The main grievance raised is, in the CBI case, more than 50 hearings took place and only 7 witnesses have been examined. As such, it has not been seriously disputed on behalf of the Union of India that the facts of departmental enquiry and criminal trial/charge are similar except making grievance that criminal proceeding is lingering-on. The main grievance raised is, in the CBI case, more than 50 hearings took place and only 7 witnesses have been examined. As such, it has not been seriously disputed on behalf of the Union of India that the facts of departmental enquiry and criminal trial/charge are similar except making grievance that criminal proceeding is lingering-on. Details of evidence/documents as also details of witnesses in criminal case and departmental enquiry state as under: - DETAILS OF EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS IN CRIMINAL CASE AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY S.No. Description of Documents In Cr.Case In DE 1 Copy of Complaint dated 18.09.2015 lodged by Shri Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot Crew Point Shahdol, SECR, Bilaspur D-2 RUD-1 2 Copy of FIR in Crime No. RC-1242015A0007 dated 18.09.2015 D-1 RUD-2 3 Copy of Verification memo dated 18.09.2015 D-3 RUD-3 4 Copy of Pre Trap memo dated 19.09.2015 D-4 RUD-4 5 Copy of Post Trap memo dated 20.09.2015 D-5 RUD-5 6 Copy of typed copy transcription (dated 20.09.2015) of relevant portion of onversation held between Shri Rajiv Katiyar & Shri Vijay Kumar during Post Trap process on 19.09.2015 at Bilaspur. D-5 RUD-6 7 Copy of Registration details of Motor Cycle D-33 RUD-7 8 Copy of pages of Station Master Diary of Karkeli Station dated 28.04.2015. D-32 RUD-8 9 Copy of page of Complaint Register of Level Crossing Gate No. L.C.B.K. 86, KM 970/09- 11 Umaria-Karkeli Section. RUD-9 10 Copy of Receiving Copy (One Sheet) dated 28.8.2015 containing the details of seizure of SM Diary, Karkeli Station w.e.f. 08.03.2015 to 28.04.2015 by Shri Rajiv Katiyar, SafetyCounselor (Engg) Bilaspur. RUD-10 11 Copy of Rough Sketch Map showing place of bribe transaction and approaching of suspect. D-6 RUD-11 DETAILS OF WITNESSES IN CRIMINAL CASE AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY S.No. Name of Witnesses In Cr.Case In DE 1. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, Crew Point, Shahdol, Under SECR, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur PW-2 1 2. Mr. Krishana Kumar, Senior Officer (P&IR), SECR, HQ, Bilaspur PW-4 2 3. Mr. Sanjay Kota, Senior Officer (P&A), SECR, HQ, Bilaspur PW-5 3 4. Mr. N.K. Jha, Office Superintendent (Legal), SECR, HQ, Bilaspur PW-6 4 5. Mr. Sandeep Gautam, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bhilai PW-4 As per CBI Witness List 5 6. Mr. Ashish Rastogi, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bhilai PW-7 (Cross-examination undergoing) 6 7. Mr. Hari Ram Sharma, Loco Pilot (Pass.), Shahdol, Bilaspur Division, SECR PW-3 7 8. Mr. Mr. N.K. Jha, Office Superintendent (Legal), SECR, HQ, Bilaspur PW-6 4 5. Mr. Sandeep Gautam, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bhilai PW-4 As per CBI Witness List 5 6. Mr. Ashish Rastogi, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bhilai PW-7 (Cross-examination undergoing) 6 7. Mr. Hari Ram Sharma, Loco Pilot (Pass.), Shahdol, Bilaspur Division, SECR PW-3 7 8. Mr. Sanjay Pandey, CSM, Karkeli, SECR, Bilaspur Division PW-10 As per CBI Witness List 8 18. As such, charges in criminal case and departmental proceeding, both appear to be same that the petitioner while working as Senior Section Engineer (Safety), South East Central Railway, Bilaspur demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from one Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, South East Central Railway. Documents in criminal trial and departmental proceeding both appear to be one and same and witnesses are also common in both criminal trial and departmental proceeding. The competent authority also thought fit to stay the departmental proceeding on the application filed by the petitioner which remain stayed for a period of two years from 7-9-2018/6-8-2019 to 17-2-2020 and even the learned CAT has granted interim stay of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner by order dated 5-8-2020, however, the learned CAT has rejected the original application itself filed by the petitioner holding that charge in the departmental proceeding is violation of safety norms, whereas the question of taking illegal gratification has to be seen by the CBI Court and finding delay in criminal case, the learned CAT has proceeded to reject the original application. Since charges are similar in criminal trial and departmental proceeding, which are one and same and documents and witnesses to be examined in both the cases are also common in both criminal trial and departmental proceeding, in our considered opinion and following the principles of law laid down in the above-stated judgments of the Supreme Court (supra), it is a fit case to stay the departmental proceeding against the petitioner for a period of one year. 19. It is stated at the Bar that one of the witnesses namely, Mr. Ashish Rastogi, Inspector of Police, CBI/ ACB, Bhilai, in support of CBI, is not appearing in criminal case, therefore, criminal case could not be concluded. 20. 19. It is stated at the Bar that one of the witnesses namely, Mr. Ashish Rastogi, Inspector of Police, CBI/ ACB, Bhilai, in support of CBI, is not appearing in criminal case, therefore, criminal case could not be concluded. 20. In that view of the matter, following the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Neelam Nag’s case (supra) and other cases, we direct that, 1. Criminal trial pending in the Special Court of CBI, Raipur against the petitioner herein shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner before the disciplinary authority shall remain stayed. 2. The petitioner will extend full cooperation to the trial for early disposal of the case. 3. The said Special Court would take effective steps to conclude the trial and if the said trial is not concluded within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, then the competent authority would be at liberty to proceed further in the departmental proceeding in accordance with law. 21. The impugned order passed by the CAT is hereby set-aside and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).