Therefore, his case was companysidered and he was promoted in 1989.
These appeals arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1218/88 dated December 12, 1993.
December 16, 1985.
Counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record relating to the D.P.C. proceedings We have perused the proceedings of D.P.C. which would clearly show that the reasons which prevailed with the DP.C. were the prosecution under section 5 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the departmental enquiry, against the appellant It is number in dispute that the proposed departmental enquiry aso is related to the self same offence under section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Leave granted.
The, judgment acquitting the appellant of the, charge under section .,
The appellant was promoted from the post of A.S.I. to I. but he was companyfirmed w.e.f.
This claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that in 1983, he was charged for an offence under section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was kept under suspension and he was also companymunicated of adverse remarks for the period from June 7, 1980 to March 31, 1981 and that he became eligible to be companysidered for promotion as S.I.w.e.f.
January 4, 1989 though it was stated .that his case for promotion had to be companysidered with effect from October 1, 1982.
