The appellants writ 3.
The enquiry officer found that both the charges 1 and 2 were proved against the respondent.
Thereafter, a final order was passed on 26/03/2001 by the appellate authority reinstating the respondent.
By an order dated 7/12/2000, the tribunal again remanded the case to the appellate authority to pass an order supported by 2.
By an order dated 01/03/1993, he was charge sheeted with article 1 and 2 of the charge.
Aggrieved thereby, he filed original petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay.
His services was terminated on 23/08/1993 preceded by an enquiry.
Thereafter on 10/02/1994, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh order terminating the service of the respondent.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
He also filed a representation as directed which was rejected by the authority on 08/06/2001.
By the aforesaid order, the respondent was also given liberty to submit a representation before the companypetent authority.
While reinstating the respondent, the appellate authority directed that the period from 10/02/1994 to 26/04/2001 shall number be treated as on duty.
The respondent was appointed under the appellant Union of India as Junior Engineer in the Department of Lighthouses and Lightships, Mumbai on 10/02/1983.
The appellate authority remanded his case to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order.
The appeal was dismissed on 24/08/1994.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the interregnum, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority.
3 petition ended without any result.
2 reasons.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent joined the service on 27/04/2001.
4904 OF 2007 Heard the parties at length.
Aggrieved thereby, he preferred another O.A. before the tribunal.
The tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the appellant to treat the period of absence from 10/02/1994 to 26/04/2001 as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances and directed the appellant to issue orders accordingly.
