Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ298CAT
(a) Whether a Government servant, who has crossed the age of superannuation, could be visited with the penalty of dismissal as a culmination of disciplinary proceedings. (b) Whether the jural relationship of master and servant survives even after the age of superannuation? (a) The applicant, initially appointed in 1958 as T II-3 (Land Surveyor and Head Draughtsman) in the office of respondent No. 4, was granted two years leave in November, 1975 to visit Sultanate of Oman. On the expiry of the sanctioned leave, for his request for extension of leave, there was no response. (b) The applicant on 23.9.1981 was informed that his services stood terminated on the expiry of 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 25.11.1980 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules. (c) The applicant had challenged the above said order of termination before the High Court of Rajasthan and the case, having been transferred to the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal as T.A. No. 12/89 came to be allowed vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ210CAT
1. Challenge in this case is against the issue of charge sheet, the penalty order and the appellate order. (a) The applicant joined as Village Extention Officer on 12.02.1976 and was promoted as Tourism Officer from 28.06.1990. During 1988 to 1994 he was sent on deputation as Assistant General Manager SPORTS. Again between 4th April, 1997 to 31st March, 2000 he was on deputation in SPORTS as Deputy General Manager (O & A). Ever since one Shri Chamanlal took over charge as Administrator he developed a sense of ill-feeling and animosity against the applicant. It worsened after two incidents (a) First when the applicant refused to install ISD Telephone at SPORTS expense at the residence of the Administrator and second when, -a- Tourist complained against administrator. A false complaint from one Shri P. Rasheed was made out against the applicant and based on that complaint, a vigilance investigation was attempted to be made. Shri P. Rasheed later withdrew the complaint made out in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ172CAT
1. The applicant in this O. A. is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-Ill), Kochi. He has challenged the following Office Memoranda: (a) Annexure A-4 Memorandum dated 21.5.02 issued by order and in the name of the President by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, New Delhi stating that the President was proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges levelled against him were the following: Article-I: That the said Shri S.K. Mitra, while working as DCIT, Central Range-7, Bombay, failed to effectively monitor the search case of Shri T.S. Makkar for the A.Y. 1990-91 and ensure that assessment in this case was properly framed by this ACIT, Shri K.R. Lakshminarayanan. Considering that a perusal of the relevant. assessment records brings out lapses both the investigation of facts and the manner of completing the assessment, there was...
Tag this Judgment!