Adour srectioe Qo Gileatn -adhaehe receding Moat OFMCE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Peliioner i ats i CARMENCITA p- CORONEL , Respondent Whe E in adminishatve.ouecy a finding of guilt mu be i supper by sulstarctial evidence. In “the preseutt Case, — am os fe an en does not conchtute substarthal evidente tect thet ee of dishon absent ent] ae ie eS — inadmissible. in evden; ee the Stl Vie _ ae no probative value Ba =e icc, BEdiyeo ce =e - Respondent eCoonel IS_@ Sesvior_ fccounting Processor iW Linamon Water District Thereads 1 wespondeutt was i Sa designated an Office ln change — Po Eeneval = ae chall have been Appoinied : a — bobobey 14,104 Mae mp dent called fora a meeting — with he olficere of dilferect waren liricks ix [anao Bello as well as adudec focal Woke ublities Admin. as ff ic cipprea lunch Fine, sees oe oped h Continue the meeting at Mawila Shwe ore n City Ten (10) peopl pas the host a nshing vespmdet goad for Wunch. L . Baal te Pe inte her cS : inch ee ins ee Tele Cesta afb ot cz. Jt was i Rie ek Re) ke anh eee eres aesapoio ce “P| [, 213-0 Oo. aa ‘November ey 1998 - Pen Gouagal_was- appoiitted. gt Sel Lingmon Water District. In 1994, he with the fia of the Dnbudeman a cwen beter lant against res spatter ae —_shonesty: He ee, Be area false} th — Invite che submitted , making ct appear ac FI when in jack twas oly £213.00 as rfc pets oa photicopy of the ovigiial duplicate of cash inveta._ 4 “the Ombudsman fords fh 0 Wold respondent “gl dine, ised form the senate, vith — he 1s ako — eee: : 1S walified ia — nahoval nd ee oe a ie yen ni ov eortlled -_oreporationc as we eer Responder fied fer Botion pr - Reeorciderotion, awd S Ht was—gya kd by Graft Investigation creer Gyace Morales sae alco” orrleved. to wet aside- he decision of the CHice te dismies he respondent fom serie: Ombudsman ylntano Deciert divapproved. the nk md said that ae deeictm Stardc.e oe Ch 2 od stb nullified pub mers_disnpproval orkey aaa a ciogpreal onde pe hang. depnived. her o due. jrecct : _ winStntd. the order of Eraeft Invecraection officer | Gate Morales who exomeaga respondent fom tbe change. oh dichawtély- 4 j The Oh tok Cegnaramce of the comoborating ei —_affidavtls submited by the recpmabeut pr the fist — time whic adequately si ported. her Innocence. The court niterakd The investigating offers finds : that the adminishatve ltoloile Clishacesty he ae rt been Me on That the omlndeman didnot consider the, edible tuikence tant In her mosoa for Neowsideration, dma oid not give fin “justificadton for dtsapproval Of the Investigacion ~ _ fet ni _ ae sl cou |SSUES * a ee oe a be livhether petihonert Dimpraval Order, expressed Aas 0 ta a valid deekfon Se Memeo. = a as 2. Whether the tnweshaabng elfcer Committed ain error IA adtaating necpm dents “nen euidence- (affidavits 4 rectawranct owner ond aitendces of . cite, mecha) ee > Whether “repondent was guilty of Abhonedyis ne Cou Rubing : : ee Pe a bferaic vale by. ne i ita the original decision , the COREY o oe amd, low! Alenily dlseussed. a evtt Shewdd. find. es a ae % Ba holt ie — ee oe Sarre dewita dug. process. ite. — aduninistative re: fre essena of due / | ee ecmeieg lie egy ae ie ec a ones ide or tr ieek reomsideration ~——-1aation ee Compladned of. hfhat ts alosolute, laak. iene ah — — i ¥ Te net allowed | resulle in a piecemeal — fom prereytadion cL wkdenw,.not in ascot Neg a averly phe onal age ie a: CE ETTORE the me fagiten- tle 4 thes the Ch deelsim- ie, mo 3 pee, ae hy the ioe hl aa