I filed a case at Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that a charge sheet against me is forged and fake. The notice were issued to 8 parties, of which one party filed Vakalatnama and the Advocate appointed represented all the eight parties where he tried to pursue CAT that OA filed is not maintainable. The CAT also wanted to dismiss the OA for biased reasons. My Advocate was unfortunately also under their infulence. I did not allow my Advocate to withdrew the case , as results he himself withdrew and I appeared personally before CAT where the Member said your application is genuine but opposite party is not appearing so wait for their reply. The opposition advocate did not appear before Tribunal for months together and finally I requested for default judgment. The Member told me to come for the next date, but when I arrived on next date the Advocate filed reply from party no. 1-5, while he had vakalatnama from party no. 8. He did not file any reply on behalf of party no. 8. He did not have vakalatnamam from parties 1- 5. He filed this reply under signature of an officer named S. K. Singh, who was not a party but may be a departmental officer but this reply did not bear any written authority from party no. 2, 3, 4, and 5 who were private respondents that Mr. S. K. Singh will file reply on their behalf. under such circumstances this reply should have been considered a s a forged reply. CAT did not decide the issue despite agreeing that the charge sheet was forged.
My query is whether the advocate without filing Memo of appearance on behalf of Government and without vakalatnama from parties for whom reply was sought can be proceeded in the state Bar Council for adopting wrong practices as he helped the CAT member to dismiss the genuine OA
