The suit was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal for disposal.
Baldev Chand Disciplinary Authority Dy.
1978 and shall companytinue to remain under suspension until further orders.
That order was made on December 1, 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 4.
It is said that the dismissal has been challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal.
General Manager A After holding the enquiry the appellant was again dis missed from service.
Consequently, status quo ante as in regard to applicant being under suspension will companytinue from 10.1.1978.
On January 5, 1981 the appellant filed a civil suit in the District Court, New Delhi, challenging the order of termination of his services.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in R.A. No.
Pending investigation of the criminal case, he was placed under suspension.
There was some criminal case companynected with the forgery of a cheque in which the appellant was arrayed as an accused.
The Tribunal has, by its judgment dated September 5, 1988 set aside the termination order with the following companyditions The impugned order of termination dated 10.1.1978 is quashed.
The order of suspension was made on March 27, 1976 under Rule 10 2 of the Rules.
351 of 1986.
D. Jain, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Sushma Suri and S.N. Terdal for the Respondents.
P. Saxena and Mukul Gupta for the Appellant.
On January 10, 1976 his services were terminated under Rule 5 1 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules, 1965.
1821 of 1991.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal is from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and companycerns with the scope of Rule 10 4 of the Central Civil Service CCA Rules, 1965 the Rules The facts leading to the appeal are these The appellant was a cash clerk in the establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme, New Delhi.
117/88 in A. No.
On March 7, 1980, the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case.
