The matter was companysidered by the respondent No.
In this background the appellant has number companye to this Court.
The order was companyfirmed in departmental appeal.
401 of 1987.
This order was challenged by the appellant by a fresh application before the Tribunal, registered as OA No.
The report was accepted by the disciplinary authority who passed an order of removal of the appellant from service on 4.2.1984.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant on the basis of several charges and an inquiry was companyducted.
It was also observed that a crimur 1 case which had been started against the appellant on the basis of the same charges had companycluded in his acquittal and this fact also shall be kept in view while deciding whether the proceedings should be dropped or number, The Tribunal did number express its view on the merits of the case against the appellant.
The appellant, thereafter, challenged the order of punishment by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No.
So far the first point is companycerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceeding companyld have been companytinued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has number substance whatsoever and does number merit a detailed companysideration.
So far the question of deemed suspension is companycerned, it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that Sub rule 4 to Rule 10 was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
An application for review was also dismissed on 31.1.1991.
The companytinuance of the enquiry was impugned on the ground of the appellants acquittal in the criminal case.
The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot companyclude the departmental proceeding.
It was companytended that since a companyy of the inquiry report had number been served on the appellant, the proceeding got vitiated in law.
The main question which has been raised in this appeal relates to the interpretation and scope of Rule 10 4 of the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1965, and its companysequent validity.
Relying upon an earlier Full Bench decision of the Tribunal the plea was accepted and the application was allowed setting aside the penalty and directing reinstatement of the appellant with the observations that it would be open to the authorities companycerned to take up the proceedings afresh, unless they chose to drop the same.
The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges had been proved.
2, who issued an order to the effect that the disciplinary proceeding shall be companytinued and that in view of Sub rule 4 of Rule 10 of C.C.S. C.C.A. Rules, 1965 the appellant will be deemed to have been under suspension with effect from 4.2.1984, the date on which he was removed from service.
Both the points were rejected by the order of the High Court dated 31.8.1990.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. Special leave is granted.
631 of 1989.
