JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:- Special leave is granted.

2. 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 consequent validity.

3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant on the basis of several charges and an Inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges had been proved. The report was accepted by the disciplinary authority who passed an order of removal of the appellant from service on 4-2-1984. The order was confirmed in departmental appeal. The 1983 appellant, thereafter, challenged the order of punishment by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 4 01 of 1987. It was contended that since a copy of the inquiry report had not been served on the appellant, the proceeding got vitiated in law. 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 concerned to take up the proceedings afresh, unless they chose to drop the same. It was also observed that a criminal case which had been started against the appellant on the basis of the same charges had concluded in his acquittal and this fact also shall be kept in view while deciding whether the proceedings should be dropped or not. The Tribunal did not express its views on the merits of the case against the appellant.

4. The matter was considered by respondent No. 2, who issued an order to the effect that the disciplinary proceeding shall be continued and that in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 196the appellant will be deemed to have been under suspension with effect from 4-2-1984, the date on which he was removed from service. This order was challenged by the appellant by a fresh application before the Tribunal, registered as OA No. 631 of 1989. The continuance of the enquiry was impugned on the ground of the appellants acquittal in the criminal case. So far the question of deemed suspension is concerned, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that sub-rule(4) to Rule.10 was ultra vires Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Both the points were rejected by the order of the High Court dated 31-8-1990. An application for review was also dismissed on 31-11991. In this background the appellant has now come to this Court.

5. So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceeding could have been continued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. 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 conclude the departmental proceeding. Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that the acts which led to the notation of the departmental disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which were the subject matter of the criminal case.

6. The other question relating to the automatic suspension of the appellant by virtue of Rule 10(4) is a serious one and in order to appreciate the argument of the appellant it is necessary to examine both SUD rules (3) and (4) of Rule 10, which are quoted below:-

"(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.

(4) Where a penalty of dismiss