300 of 1987 to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which on the first instance remanded the matter by order dated 9 12 1987 to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter and dispose of it afresh.
But he found that out of 14 charges, 10 charges were proved.
A regular disciplinary enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found that except 3 charges, all the other 11 charges were proved.
On the basis of the enquiry held and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority ordered punishment of removal from service.
The appellant was charged for certain misconduct and on that account 14 charges were framed against him.
The disciplinary authority after perusing the report of the Enquiry Officer found that one more charge was also number proved.
678 CH/88 dated 1 2 1993.
On remand the appellate authority again went into the matter and by its detailed order companyfirmed the order of the disciplinary authority.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who companyfirmed the order of removal.
Against that the appellant preferred an application Case No.
The appellant still feeling number satisfied, preferred the present OA to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
