Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court March 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.
A. Jayaram Vs. the Vice President, Csir and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ95CAT
1. The applicant was issued with a memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 18.4.1988. The charge against the applicant was that he used abusive language and assaulted Shri D.V.Venkatasubramanyam, Scientist E-l of Material Sciences Division of NAL, Bangalore, near the NAL Bus Stop on Route 13 at Banashankari III Stage of Bangalore, on 28.12.1987, thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of a council servant violating Rule 3 (l)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.The applicant submitted his reply dated 15.6.88. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was held and Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 3.4.92 holding that all the charges framed against the applicant as proved beyond doubt. The Disciplinary Authority taking into account the representation of the applicant on the inquiry report imposed on the applicant the penalty of reduction of the pay of the applicant by one increment from Rs. 1440/- to Rs. 1410/-, vide order dated 30.12.92, in the time scale of p...
D. Mariswamy Gowda Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ88CAT
1. The applicant, UDC in the office of first respondent, has filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and seeks quashing of orders dated 30.3.2001 (Annexure A-2) passed by first respondent, which on an appeal has been upheld vide order dated 18.1.2002 (Annexure A-4) passed by second respondent. He has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) call for the records relating to the issue of the order bearing (i) No. KN/ BN/PF/VIG/915/2001 dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office--Karnataka (Annexure A2) and (ii) No. HRM-III/20(1)02/KN/ 17328 dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner (HR) and Appellate Authority, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (Annexure A4), peruse the same, (b) grant opportunity of hearing and quash/set aside the orders at Annexures A2 and A4; (c) consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant ...
V.K. Mohan Vs. the Secretary to Govt. of India and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ144CAT
1. The applicant, in the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) To direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant and place him above Jagadeesh Kumar in the seniority list published as on 1.6.93 of U.D.C.'s and to quash letter No. (b) To call for relevant records including select list leading to promotion of Jagadeesh Kumar, to peruse and to direct the Respondents to place the applicant in the select list 91 of Assistants above Jagadeesh Kumar. (b)(1) To declare that the applicant is deemed to have been confirmed for all purposes. (c) To consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant from the date of the junior Jagadeesh Kumar was promoted as Assistant on long term basis and then on regular basis w.e.f. 12.4.94 the date on which junior Jagadeesh Kumar has been promoted, and to pay all consequential benefits : (d) To issue order or orders, direction or directions as the Hon'ble Court might dee...
Sri Chandrashekharachar Vs. Chief Post Master General and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ101CAT
1. Since both these O.As. are overlapping in nature, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The short but interesting question of vital ramification raised in the present set of proceedings is as to whether a casual labourer with temporary status is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment and pensionary benefit under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 & Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 respectively? 3. The facts of the case are: The applicant who was granted temporary status with effect from 29.11.1989 by an order dated 26.7.1994 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South Division.Bangalore in terms of the instructions contained in the Directorate letters dated 12.4.1991 and 30.11.1992, retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31st July, 2002, was later on allowed pension. By communication dated 16.7.2002 Pension Payment Order in No. 9650/LPS/BG for Rs. 1275 per month with effect from 1.8.200...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. R. Umashankar and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ128CAT
1. The petitioners seek review of an order dated 9.1.2000 passed by a Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 1421 and 1428-1439/ 2000. The order dated 9.1.2001 passed in the aforesaid O.As. had been carried by the petitioners to the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 17090 and 24246-24257/02, which writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 24.6.2002. However, an observation was made by the High Court that if the petitioners had any grievance they can approach this Tribunal for review of its order and hence the present R.As.2. The basic grounds urged in support of the review applications are: (a) that the order passed by this Tribunal on 9.1.2002 is not on merits of the case and contrary to the O.M. dated 18.3.1974 issued by the Ministry of Defence; (b) that Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal had dismissed similar kind of O.A. which "were not within the knowledge and, therefore, the same could not be produced at the time when the order was passed" and (c) grant of advance increments to...
B.C. Ganatra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ45CAT
2. The applicant who retired as a Superintendent of Central Excise on 28.2.98 from the service of the respondents had filed O.A./635/98 in the first round inter alia for quashing the charge sheet issued to him vide Memo dated 5.2.1998 and payment of his retirement dues. While disposing of the O.A. on 25.6.99, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders within four months failing which release all his retirement dues within eight weeks thereafter. However, as the enquiry was not completed, the applicant moved CP/71/99 and notice was issued. Pending the above proceedings, he received the report of the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) dated 8.1.2000 holding that the charges against him are not confirmed.Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Rajkot Orders on 10.8.2000 that the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 5.2.1998 have been dropped and Government's displeasure have be...
K. Dharmarajan, Ias Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ38CAT
1.This reference has been made in pursuance of the difference of opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench in their order dated 8.7.2002.2. I have heard Mr. Jayant Dass, learned senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.R. Sachdeva, learned Counsel for the respondents.Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted a folder showing the Assessment Chart of 1966 batch of IAS Officers, for the original empanelment for Secretary (Extracts of File No. 1121/86-CSA) and a tabular chart of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the concerned 17 officers mentioned in the O.A. and that of the applicant, in pursuance of the previous order dated 17.3.2003, copy placed on record. He has also submitted the ACR folders of the aforesaid 17 officers which are also referred to the opinion of Hon'ble Shri S.A.T.Rizvi, Member (A) dated 8.7.2002. These records as well as the pleadings and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been carefully considered.3. In...
Mrs. Linimol Joseph Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ159CAT
1. In this application, the applicant is seeking the quashing of the memorandum dated 10.6.2002 (Annexure A-18) and for a direction to the respondents to restore the appointment of the applicant as Senior Clerk and to continue her in the present place of posting as Junior Accounts Assistant (JAA) in the Wheel & Axle Plant, Yelahanka, Bangalore with all consequential benefits which she would have got had she continued without the order of termination being passed against her.2. The brief facts are that South Central Railway had placed an indent on Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore during 1995 for filling up of 90 vacancies of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist to be posted in Guntakal and Hubli Divisions. The Railway Recruitment Board supplied a panel consisting of 90 names on 17.4.96. Out of these, 37 candidates were allotted to Hubli and 53 candidates to Guntakal division respectively.The applicant was one of the candidates selected through the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore agains...
Court on Its Own Vs. Sh. Vidya Nand Sharma
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ1CAT
1. We have heard the petitioner in M.A. 534/2003 and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned standing Counsel for the respondents. We are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that any ground has been made out by him to allow the prayer in the M.A. to stay the proceedings of CP (Crl.) 3/2001, on the ground that he is facing criminal charge, in the Criminal Court. In this view of the matter, M.A. 534/2003 is dismissed.2. We have heard the alleged contemner Mr. Vidya Nand Sharma and Mr.Ajesh Luthra, learned standing Counsel who has been appointed by the Court in the matter.3. By order dated 5.12.2001 in R.A. 337 of 2001 and M.A. 1895/2001, while dismissing the Review Application, the Division Bench of the Tribunal had made certain observations and directed notice to be issued against the applicant to present himself before the Bench for further consideration in the matter. The relevant observations of the Court are as follows: "Use of the words "on above applicant hereby allege that t...
Prem Prakash Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ291CAT
1. Through this O.A. the applicant seeks quashment of the charge-sheet dated 11.10.91 (Annex. A-1), the order imposing penalty dated 24.12.92 (Annex. A-2) and the Appellate Authority's order dated 4/7.3.2001.(Annex. A-3).2. The relevant facts are these. The applicant while working as Postal Assistant, was holding the charge of the post of Sub-Post Master VKI area, road No. 9, Jaipur City. Vide order dated 19.9.2001 and Mr.Bhanwar Singh Nirwan, was posted in his place and the applicant was directed to hand over charge of the office of Sub-Post Master. When Shri Nirwan, went to take charge from the applicant on 20.9.91, he refused to hand over the charge to Shri Nirwan. The applicant was, therefore, placed under suspension vide order dated 20.9.91. The applicant refused to take a copy of the suspension memo.2.1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, (SSPO for short), therefore, served a charge-sheet dated 11.10.91 (Annex. A-1) on the applicant. It contained two charges. One, the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »