and did number receive Govt.
i stands satisfied in this case.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of charge sheet dated April 29, 1990.
Ambala had taken up the execution of this scheme without the approval of the Govt.
The Governor of Haryana is pleased to suspend Shri Hari Ram Yadav, IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests number appointed as Forest Expert in the Rural Development Department, Haryana with immediate effect for the following Misuse of funds under the Million Wells Scheme in which it has been prima facie established that Shri Hari Ram, IFS while he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Morni at Pinjore, Distt.
1573/CH/91 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which has been allowed by the tribunal by order dated October 12, 1992, and the said order of suspension has been quashed.
There is numberaverment in the said petition challenging the validity of the impugned order of suspension on the ground that the Governor of Haryana was number satisfied that it was either necessary or desirable to place Respondent I under suspension.
On the same day, i.e., November 25, 1991, an order was passed whereby Respondent I was placed under suspension.
Respondent I is a member of the Indian Forest Service and belongs to Haryana State cadre of the said service.
The tribunal has found that the second ingredient was number satisfied because the impugned order of suspension numberhere says that the Governor of Haryana was satisfied that it was either necessary or desirable to place Respondent I under suspension.
A charge sheet has been issued under Rule 8 of the All India Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1969 for companymitting irregularities while posted at Kurukshetra as Deputy Conservator of Forests.
During the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings another chargesheet dated November 25, 1991 was issued.
Respondent I filed a petition OA No.
The impugned order of suspension reads as under In accordance with Rule 3 1 of All India Services Discipline Appeal Rules, 1969 for short the Rules suspension of an officer can be ordered against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending o companytemplated.
approval for spending Rs 50,00,000 received as financial assistance from the Development Department.
A departmental inquiry has been ordered.
The second companytention urged by Respondent 1 has, however, been accepted by the tribunal and in view of the acceptance of the said companytention, the tribunal did number companysider necessary to deal with the third companytention.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 12, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench hereinafter referred to as the tribunal .
There has been misappropriation of funds and labour has number been paid the wages.
In the said petition, Respondent I has companycentrated his attack on the allegations charges levelled against him.
The question that arises for companysideration is whether the order dated November 25, 1991, whereby Hari Ram Yadav, Respondent 1, was placed under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 1 of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
