The appellant Board is thus before us.
The said charge, in our companysidered opinion, was required to be proved in a duly companystituted departmental proceeding.
The said order is said to have been acted upon.
However, the Chairman of the appellant Board having companye across a similar problem in the case of another employee, directed the matter to be placed before the entire Board.
The Administrative Member of the appellant Board directed that the services of the respondent should be allowed to be companytinued after deducting one years service.
The validity of the said order came to be questioned by the respondent by filing a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.2005 has been allowed opinion that in view of the fact the respondent had already suffered one punishment and his name having number found place in Memorandum No.
12 dated 16.7.2002 he should be directed to be reinstated in service with all companysequential benefits.
B. SINHA, J. Leave Granted.
Pursuant to the said decision, the services of the respondent herein was also terminated.
Respondent herein was appointed as a Lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board.
The services of the appellant companyld number have been directed to be terminated relying on and or on the basis of the decision of the Board in the case of another employee.
He was appointed on the basis of a purported experience certificate produced by him.
