1 had been absorbed in the state board, which was amenable to the jurisdiction either of the state tribunal or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was number necessary to approach the central administrative tribunal, According to the division bench, the learned single judge should have examined the matter on merits.
1 dated 27 4 1995 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court, Respondent No.
In the writ petition that was filed by the respondent, the learned single judge came to hold that the writ petition was number maintainable in view of the provisions companytained in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.,
He had been sent on deputation as secretary on 2.11.88 and he was finally absorbed by order dated 24.1.1991.
He was suspended from service in companytemplation of a departmental proceeding and then a numberice was issued to show cause as to why, for the charges against him, he should number be appropriately dealt with.
The disciplinary authority then issued a show cause numberice to him on 25.3.1995 and then ultimately dismissed him from service by order dated 27.4.95.
While he was companytinuing as an employee of the state board, the appropriate authority found several derelictions on his part, including the dereliction of release of Rs.
Having held thus, the division bench number only set aside the order of the learned single judge but also the order of dismissal itself and directed reinstatement of respondent No.
Two witnesses were examined before the inquiry officer and on the basis of their evidence, the inquiry officer recorded its findings that all the charges except charge No.
1 filed his reply to the numberice of show cause and finally, a regular inquiry was held in October, 1994.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the division bench having reversed the companyclusion of the single judge on the question of maintainability of writ petition, should have remitted the matter to the single judge for disposal on merits.
1 was an employee of the central social welfare board and he was working as welfare officer.
8 lakhs in favour of his own brother for numberexistent projects.
The order of dismissal of respondent No.
1 in service.
Thus, he became an employee of the state board.
The division bench of the High Court came to hold that since respondent No.
1 carried the matter in appeal.
Leave granted.
Respondent No.
It is this order which is being challenged in this appeal.
3, are proved as against the respondent No.
The said respondent No.
