Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court November 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deepak Sudhan Bahuguna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ70CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 4.4.2003 extending the period of probation for a period of six months w.e.f. 28.10.2002 as well as order dated 24.7.2003, wherein, on expiry of extended period assessed applicant not fit to continue on the post of Master (English) applicant was reverted back to the substantive post of Assistant Master. Quashing of the aforesaid has been sought with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant was appointed as Assistant Master on 1.7.94 at Military School Chail. In view of the notification for the post of Master (English) which was to be processed through UPSC applicant being fully eligible as per the recruitment rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the post of Master applied for the post and on interview and other formalities applicant was offered the post of Master (English) Group 'B' post at Rashtriya Indian Military College (IRMS) vide letter dated 29.9.2000. The post was permanent but the initial appointment was...
Abdul Khadar Darga Vs. the Joint Commissioner (Admn.)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ32CAT
"(a) Call for the records from the respondents which ultimately resulted in the penalty of removal from service bearing No. F17(ii) 13/2000/KVS(MR) dated 21.3.2001 of the 2nd respondent as produced at Annexure-A1 and on perusal, quash the same along with Order No. 9-33/2000/KVS (Vig) dated 4.9.2001 placed at Annexure-A2. (b) direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the applicant in the Vidyalaya of the 4th respondent. (c) direct the respondents to pay the applicant from the date of relieving to the date of reinstatement. (d) quash the entire enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer along with the enquiry report, Annexure-A40. (e) issue such other order or relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.2. Shri Abdul Khadar Darga, who had been working as a Teacher at Sambra from 1996 was transferred to Joshimath (Uttaranchal) vide order dated 25.10.1999. The said transfer order was challenged before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 903/99. Since the r...
Kisalay Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ382CAT
1. In this application filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act the applicant has challenged the charge sheet dated 28.2.90 issued by the respondent No. 6, the enquiry report dated 27.6.91, the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.9.91 and the appellate order dated 26.2.93 issued by the respondent No. 4. He has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid punishment orders and for payment of the salary withheld as a measure of penalty. At the relevant time the applicant was working as Sr. Clerk Stenographer (SCS) in the Office of SP, Special Crime Branch (SCB) of CBI, Calcutta. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 5.2.90 in contemplation of a Disciplinary proceeding against him. He was issued with a charge memo dated 28.2.90 containing two articles of charge. The sum and substance of the charges was that he deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders of his superior officers. In other words the charge against him was of insubordination.3. Being aggrieved by th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›