Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court December 2004 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.
R.C. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ207CAT
1. This is an application by R. C. Lal, describing himself as TTE, Bikaner, under the North Western Railway, Bikaner Division, who has already retired on 30th June, 2003. There are four respondents led by the Union of India through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur and followed by the Chief Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Bikaner and the Divisional Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, Bikaner. In all four orders are under challenge contained in Annex. A/1 dated 23.6.1986 of Mr. B.S. Jhingon, Senior D.C.M., Bikaner (not a respondent), Annex. A/ 2 dated 15.5.2001 of Mr. Vivek Angra, D.C.M., Bikaner, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, Annex. A/3 dated 12.7.2002 by Divisional Commercial Manager - Bikaner (respondent No. 4) rejecting his appeal against the penalty and Annex. A/4 dated 1.9.2003 by Chief Commercial Manager, Jaipur, rejecting revision petition. The O.A. has been file...
K. Pushparaj Vs. the Controller and Auditor
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ235CAT
1. The applicant challenges the order of penalty of reducing his pay from Rs. 2840/- to Rs. 2550/- per month for a period of 3 years by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed in appeal.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant is working as Group-D employee in the office of the Accountant General in Karnataka at Bangalore. On the basis of a written complaint dated 9.9.1999 by 38 lady officials of the Accountant General's office making serious allegations of sexual harassment memorandum of charges containing 4 articles dated 3.1.2000 was served on the applicant. A domestic inquiry was held and a report dated 25.7.2000 was submitted. However, after considering the representation of the applicant dated 2.10.2000, the matter was remitted back for fresh inquiry. The fresh inquiry was conducted and a report dated 15.5.2002 was submitted and after considering the representation of the applicant dated 10.6.2002 and his expression of repentance and seeking mercy in his representa...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ164CAT
1. By this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant was prayed for quashing the order dated 11.9.2000 by which the penalty of a cut of 50% on the pension on a permanent basis otherwise admissible has been imposed. He has further prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay gratuity and leave encashment for 20 days coupled with the relief of quashing the order dated 11.5.2001 by which the suspension period has not been counted as on duty. (Annexure -6 and Annexure-6A of the affidavit).2. Briefly stated, the applicant, at the relevant time was working as Sub-Post Master (SPM), Daranagar, Allahabad who retired on 31.12.1997.Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 whereby chargsheet dated 4.7.1994 (Annexure-1) for his misconduct of fraudulent withdrawal of sum of Rs. 13,500/- from various Saving Bank Accounts. Before finalisation of the proceedings as stated above, the official retired on...
Sh. Jatashankarsingh Ramsingh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ377CAT
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2003, which treats the period from the date of removal to that of reinstatement as dies non and asks him to refund the amount of compassionate allowance and D.C.R.G. etc.with interest before he can be actually reinstated and the subsequent order dated 07.03.2003 (Annexure A-4) on his application dated 13.02.2003 the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the following relief: "10.1 In view of the facts mentioned in para 6 above the applicant prays to the Hon'ble Tribunal to quash and set aside Paras 2 to 3 of Annexure A/4. (A) The first part of penalty is already implemented and direct to the respondents to pay the salary of a Khalasi from 12.10.1995 to 12.10.1998. (B) The applicant should be passed as Fitter Grade-II from 13.10.1998 and pay the salary with arrears with all consequential benefits.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant was proceeded against on the charge of unauthorised absence. A penalty of removal...
M. Angappan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ318CAT
1. In the Final Seniority List of Sub-Inspector of Police between S.Nos. 149 to 162 issued by the Office of the Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry vide order dated 22.8.2002 has been assailed by the applicants in these O.As.2. The applicants pray of a direction to refix their seniority following the rota rule prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and set aside the said Seniority List.3. It is submitted that according to the Recruitment Rules framed for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police framed in G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 11.6.1984 (Annexure A-3) the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is to be filled up by promoption/direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1.Promotion is to be made from regular Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Cyber) who have completed three years of continuous service and regular Head Constables/Head Constables (Wireless and Driver) who have completed six years of continuous service or by tran...
V. Mannivannan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ150CAT
1. The applicant in this O. A. is working as Additional Commissioner in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV, Chennai. He entered service in the Department of Central Excise as Assistant Collector on 13.12.1984. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner on an ad hoc basis by an order dated 7.8.1997 and was redesignated as Joint Commissioner on 21.6.1999 and further granted nonfunctional Selection Grade by an order dated 20.9.2000. The applicant changed his name from D.V. Inderagith to V. Manivannan and the changed name was incorporated in the office record vide letter dated 18.4.2001. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.10.2003 issued by the respondent department regularising several officers officiating on an ad hoc basis as Joint Commissioners in the scale of Rs. 12000-16500 wherein several of his juniors have been promoted for the panel years 1992-93 to 1997-98 leaving him out. The applicant submitted that he has a good record of service and...
J.A. Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ383CAT
1. Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of removal from service, that of Revisional Authority again enhancing the modified punishment of reduction to lower grade by Appellate Authority to removal from service and that of General Manager upholding this enhancement the applicant has preferred the present OA.He has sought for the quashing of all these orders including that of Appellate Authority.2. The applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 6.4.90. The statement of imputation indicate that one Shri C.S. Nair, Retired CGC Kankaria has submitted an application for transfer/packing allowance as he had shifted to a new home after retirement. The claim was not admissible as the distance was about 15 km. When Shri Nair contacted the applicant he was informed that the allowance is not admissible as the distance is Less than 20 km. On receiving an assurance that an amount of Rs. 800 only will be paid the applicant advised Shri Nair to submit a fresh appli...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›