Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court May 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.
Parmanand Prasad Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: May-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ358CAT
1. The applicant of this O. A. has prayed for quashing the disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that initiation of such proceedings was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because of the delay in the initiation of such proceedings and non-conclusion of the proceedings within a reasonable time frame.2. Pleadings on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a charge sheet by memorandum dated 27.2.2001 which was served upon him on 12.6.2001 i.e., after a lapse of about three and half months from the date of issue of charge sheet. The charge sheet contains only one charge relating to the year 1992-1993 when the applicant was functioning as SDO (P) (North) under the Divisional Engineer Telephones, Kaisarbagh. The only charge was failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant...
R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ164CAT
1. The applicant is an I.A.S. Officer of U.P. Cadre of 1973 batch. He was confirmed in the cadre w.e.f. 7th July, 1975 and was given senior scale w.e.f. 24.7.1975 and confirmed in that scale w.e.f. 16.1.1984.The applicant was also promoted in the selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.86 in pursuance of the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3406 of 1995. The applicant was also promoted in the super time scale w.e.f.1.1.89 vide order dated 2.12.92 in compliance of the order dated 22.10.92 passed by this Tribunal.2. The grievance of the applicant is that he is eligible for promotion in Principal Secretary Grade of service (in the scale of Rs. 22,400-24,600. It appears that the applicant was considered for promotion to the said super time scale alongwith his batch mates by Screening Committee on 3.11.2000. The recommendations in respect of the applicant were kept in a sealed cover on account pendency of two charge sheets dated 10.3.98 and 6.12.99. However, the sealed cover in respect o...
Dr. J.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ138CAT
1. The applicant of this O.A. has prayed that the directions be issued to the respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant in the Sr.Administrative Grade of the Indian Railway Medical Service (hereinafter referred to as IRMS) w.e.f. 17.2.97 after maintianing his seniority as given in the selection grade of IRMS.2. Pleadings on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant who belongs to IRMS was promoted in the selection grade on 20.11.92. The applicant was however, not promoted in the Sr. Administrative Grade of IRMS in pursuance of the DPC held on 12.9.96 although quite a few officers junior to the applicant were promoted to the Sr. Administrative Grade of IRMS by order dated 17.2.97 in pursuance of the DPC held on 12.9.96.The contention of the applicant is that he had never been communicated any adverse remarks, if at all, recorded in his character roll and in the absence of communication of any adver...
K.L. Sharma, S.E. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ154CAT
1. Shri K.L. Sharma, presently Superintending Engineer (MES) has filed this original application, challenging initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondents by letter dated 26.4.1996 under Annexure 3. He has inter alia sought for the following reliefs from the Tribunal: (a) To quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in Annexures 1 and 3; and (b) To quash the order of the Disciplinary Authority under Annexures 16 and 17.The applicant had also prayed for interim relief seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 3. That prayer, however, was not pressed for order and hence no interim order was issued.2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows. The applicant had served as G.E., E/M, Chakeri. His Disciplinary Authority (Ministry of Defence) by their letter dated 26.4.1996 issued a show cause notice to him indicating their intention of holding an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Contro...
Mrs. M.R. Nath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ7CAT
1. After qualifying the All India Service competitive examination of the year 1968, the applicant Mrs. M.R. Nath came to be inducted to Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short 'IDAS') and has been given the badge of 1969 batch. In course of time, she came to be promoted to the post of Controller of Defence Accounts which post was up-graded in the year 2000 from the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400 to that of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (for short 'PCDA') in the pay scale of Rs. 22400-24500. The cadre of the officers of IDAS is governed by the Rules called the Indian Defence Accounts Service Rules, 2000.There are seven posts of PCDA as per Schedule I of the Rules. The next higher post is that of Additional Controller General of Defence Accounts (for short ACGDA) which is to be filled "by promotion on the basis of selection by merit" from amongst the officers managing the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 22400-525-24500. For filling the two vacant posts of ACGDA, A Depart...
O.P. Kejriwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ145CAT
1. The applicant of this O.A. has prayed that the impugned order of transfer dated 6.5.2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexures No. A-1 and A-2 be quashed along with directions for giving consequential benefits.2. Pleadings on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.3. By order dated 6th May, 2002, the applicant was transferred from Central Command, Lucknow to Northern Command, Jammu. Another order was passed on the same date i.e. on 6th May, 2002 whereby a new incumbent namely Sri Balsharan Singh was directed to hold additional charge of Central Command, Lucknow w.e.f. 10th May, 2002. Both the orders dated 6th May, 2002 were passed by Director General, Defence Estates, New Delhi. The applicant is aggrieved against these orders which have been challenged by him in the present O.A.4. At the out-set it may be stated here that in this case an interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 10.5.2002 by which the impugned orders dated...
Dr. Vivek Ramakrishna Bhat Vs. the Director (Personnel), Icar
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ340CAT
1. The applicant who is working as Senior Scientist Horticulture, in the office of Respondent No. 3, in the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order No. F. 110-17(1) 2001 bills dated 19.3.2002 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-6) and also the order dated No. F. 110-17(1)2001 dated 23.10.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-4), in the interest of justice. (ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to sanction and release the house rent allowance and the transport allowances for the period from 15,6.2001 to 31.5,2002 in the interest of justice. (iii) Grant such other and further relief/s as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The facts which required to be noted for the disposal of the present O.A. are as follows: The applicant initially joined ICAR a...
Phuleshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ162CAT
1. This Tribunal is faced with a vexing crucial question with regard to its jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to the service matters of various categories of Central Government Employees who have been transferred on deemed deputation with effect from 1st October, 2000 to a newly incorporated Company Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'BSNL').2. A narrative of facts giving rise to the above controversy is that Shri Phuleshwar Prasad Singh (applicant in the two O.As), who admittedly is holding the post of Senior Accounts Officer, having been promoted in the year 1997 in the cadre of Indian Post and Telegraph Accounts and Finance Service Group 'B', is a Member of All India Service. He was posted in the office of Divisional Engineer (Telephone) Darbhanga, Bihar, and was under the administrative control of Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications, Government of India.By orders dated 16.3.2001 (i.e. after his deemed deputation in BSNL) he was placed under suspensio...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›