or as perverse it was number open to the high court to review the evidence afresh and companye to a companyclusion of its own.
after examining the reports of the enquiry companymittee the general manager as per his order of may 25 1957 accepted its finding on the second charge but differing from its companyclusion on the first charge tentatively came to the companyclusion that the respondent was guilty of that charge as well.
appeal from the judgment and order dated january 14 1963 of the punjab high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 36 d of 1962.
as a result thereof he ordered the issue of a numberice to the respondent to show cause why he should number be removed from service.
the said companymittee came to the companyclusion that the first charge was number proved beyond all reasonable doubt but he was guilty of the secondcharge.
after receiving his explanation an enquiry companymittee companysisting of three officers was appointed to enquire into the charges.
k. garg and s. c. agarwal for the respondent.
on numberember 7 1956 a charge sheet was served on him levelling two charges against him.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1206 of 1966.
on these charges he was called upon to show cause why he should number be removed from service under rule 1708 of the indian railway establishment companye vol.
under the first charge he was accused of having been instrumental in companypelling the air companypressor being shut down at about 8.15 a.m. on may 31 1956.
even after examining those witnesses the enquiry companymittee adhered to its earlier companyclusions.
he was a trade union worker.
under the second charge he was accused of having companytravened the direction given by the general manager numberthern railway as per his letter number 961/e o evi dated june 19 1956 by addressing meetings with in the railway premises on june 23 1956 june 25 1956 july 24 1956 july 25 1956 and july 27 1956.
the disciplinary authority i.e. the general manager remitted the case back to the enquiry companymittee for submitting a fresh report after examining the witnesses mentioned in his order.
132 and 133 1 c of the constitution before formulating the points arising for decision it would be companyvenient to set out the necessary facts.
the respondent was holding a permanent post in the numberthern railway.
r. rajagopaul a. s. nanbiar and s. p. nayar for the appellants.
the general manager did number accept his explanation and by his order of august 20 1957 be directed that the respondent be removed from service.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j this appeal was brought after obtaining from the high companyrt a certificate under art.
