https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278593 A prior writ judgment under Article 226 had finally decided the competence of the industrial reference, and because that decision was not challenged further, the same parties were bound by it and the issue could not be reopened. On the disciplinary action, the removal order failed because the charges were mostly vague, lacking particulars of persons, acts, dates, or documents, and the supporting material was not disclosed. A later show-cause notice did not cure the earlier denial of a meaningful opportunity to answer definite charges. The Tribunal was therefore justified in setting aside the removal, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 27 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278593 A prior writ judgment under Article 226 had finally decided the competence of the industrial reference, and because that decision was not challenged further, the same parties were bound by it and the issue could not be reopened. On the disciplinary action, the removal order failed because the charges were mostly vague, lacking particulars of persons, acts, dates, or documents, and the supporting material was not disclosed. A later show-cause notice did not cure the earlier denial of a meaningful opportunity to answer definite charges. The Tribunal was therefore justified in setting aside the removal, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278593