D. Dhanasekaran Vs. Uoi, Rep., by the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage and Wagon Works, Perambur and Others

D. Dhanasekaran vs Uoi, Rep., by the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage and Wagon Works, Perambur and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras Decided May 04, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/938069

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/938069
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Judge: The Honourable Mr. G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Mrs. O.P. Sosamma, Administrative Member
Decided On: May 04, 2012
Case Number: OA.No.517 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Dhanasekaran

Advocate For the Applicant: M/s. S. Vijay, Advocate. For the Respondent : R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate.

Respondent

Uoi, Rep., by the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage and Wagon Works, Perambur and Others

Excerpt

g. shanthappa, judicial member the applicant has filed this oa under section 19 of the administrative tribunal's act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in proceedings no.cpb/227/5/v/2008/01/bl.7883/pa dated 27.9.2010 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant and consequent benefits.” 2. we have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. mr.r.krishnamurthy is directed to take notice for the respondents and file memo of appearance. 3. being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the applicant has preferred a statutory appeal dated 19.8.2011. when the said appeal is pending for consideration, he has filed the present oa challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority. 4. learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay in filing the appeal and the delay has also been explained in the appeal. 5. learned counsel for the respondents submits that if a direction is given to the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant within a time frame, the appellate authority will consider and decide the same in accordance with rules. 6. considering the submissions made by the learned counsel from either side, we feel that the ends of justice will be met if a direction is given to the respondents, i.e., the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant within a time frame. accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the second respondent, who is the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant dated 19.8.2011 by exercising the powers vested on him under rule 22 (2) of rsand(da) rules, in accordance with rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. with the above observations, the oa is disposed of at the admission stage.

Full Judgment

G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

To call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in proceedings no.CPB/227/5/V/2008/01/BL.7883/PA dated 27.9.2010 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant and consequent benefits.”

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.R.Krishnamurthy is directed to take notice for the respondents and file memo of appearance.

3. Being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the applicant has preferred a statutory appeal dated 19.8.2011. When the said appeal is pending for consideration, he has filed the present OA challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay in filing the appeal and the delay has also been explained in the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if a direction is given to the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant within a time frame, the appellate authority will consider and decide the same in accordance with rules.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel from either side, we feel that the ends of justice will be met if a direction is given to the respondents, i.e., the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant within a time frame. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the second respondent, who is the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant dated 19.8.2011 by exercising the powers vested on him under Rule 22 (2) of RSand(DA) Rules, in accordance with rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras · 2012 Same Parties D. Dhanasekaran vs Uoi, Rep., by the Chief Workshop Manager, ... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Mr. G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member &Amp; the H...