As per case facts, the Respondent, an IRS officer on loan to NCB, faced a CBI case for corruption and conspiracy after being detached from NCB, following allegations of extortion ... in the Cordelia Cruise Case. He filed a Writ Petition in Bombay High Court and an OA with CAT challenging vigilance inquiries and a subsequent Charge Memo based on a call transcript he himself produced. CAT quashed the Charge Memo, leading the Petitioners to appeal to the High Court. The question arose whether CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the Charge Memo at a premature stage on grounds such as lack of a witness list, vagueness, or alleged malice. Finally, the High Court held that CAT's interference was premature and unwarranted. It stated that a Charge Memo should not be quashed at the threshold merely for lack of a witness list, especially when documentary evidence (self-produced transcripts) is available. Interference is limited to cases of clear illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or established malice. The High Court found the charges specific, not vague, and set aside CAT's judgment, advising the Respondent to pursue internal remedies.