Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court July 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.
Ranjit Kumar Sahay Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ296CAT
1. Applicant Shri Ranjit Kumar Sahay, an IPS officer, of Maharashtra Cadre has filed two O.A. Nos. 2129/03 and 2133/03 for expunction of adverse remarks given to him in ACRs for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively. Although the wordings of the adverse remarks in both the years are different but since the issues and legal principles involved for judicial review are same, we propose to dispose of both the O.As. by this common order.2. In O.A. No. 2129/03 the applicant has prayed for expunction of adverse remarks given to him in the ACR for 1999-2000. The applicant has stated that on his representation to the State Government, only a few of the adverse remarks have been expunged. His contention is that all adverse remarks should have been expunged. The relief sought in Para 8(i) is for "quashing the part which is against the applicant and maintaining which is in favour of the applicant". He has further prayed for declaration that the adverse remarks are the outcome of malice ha...
Bhagwan Singh and anr. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Railways
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ260CAT
1. By filing this O.A., the applicants have sought the following main reliefs : "(a) Quash the impugned eligibility list (Ann.A-1) holding it to be illegal & against the rules. (b) Direct the respondents to prepare a fresh eligibility list based on integrated seniority list (Ann.A-2) with correction if any & conduct the selection strictly as per rules. (c) Direct the respondents to place the applicant No. 2 at S. No. 4 below Shri D.P. Saha & above Shri B.L. Kori and also, applicant No. 1 above Shri R.K. Saxena at S. No. 6. 8(e) To direct the respondents to give pre-promotional training to the applicant failing which entire process of selection may be quashed in the interest of justice".2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working in the grade of Rs. 7450-11500 on regular basis w.e.f. 1.3.1993. They are eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Commercial Manager in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000. As per Para 201 (1) of the Indian Railw...
Dr. Ajoy Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ243CAT
1. The applicant who is a Divisional Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital was not considered for the Junior Administrative Grade as per Annexure-I order of the Railway Board dated 18.3.2002 and his juniors were promoted and included in the list and his legitimate claim for the promotion was rejected without slating any valid reason. His representation dated 3.5.2002 was replied to by the Board slating that taking into account all the relevant factors the DPC did not find him suitable for empanelment/promotion to JA Grade. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit the application, call for the entire records of the case, including the ACRs of the applicant and the minutes of the DPC held on 15.11.01, ask the respondents to show cause as to why the applicant should not be promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade and after perusing the cause show...
K.G. Lakshminarayanappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ262CAT
1. The validity of charge memorandum dated 20th February, 2001 (Annexure-A8) issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been questioned in the present application, besides seeking a direction to open the scaled cover and to promote him to the post of Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise with all consequential benefits.2. The core facts are not in dispute and may be briefly staled as herein under: On 18th February, 1994 the applicant was posted as Inspector of Customs, Inland Container Depot of Customs, Bangalore. Pursuant to communication dated 8th April, 1993 (Annexure-A3), only 10% of baggage was required to be opened. The applicant opened and examined 4 baggage of 2 passengers and found no discrepancy. Since certain news items were published in the local daily newspapers alleging undervaluing the baggages as well as involvement of certain officials, the same were denied and vigilance enquiry was also conducted by the Directorate General of Vigilance, Bangalore Zonal ...
R.B. Kamble Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ389CAT
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to challenge the order dated 10.12.2001 of Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, which was upheld by order dated 26.2.2002 of the Appellate Authority and order dated 19.6.2002 of the Revisional Authority and has prayed for quashing and setting aside the above orders.2. The applicant at the relevant time was working as Junior Booking Clerk at the booking office of Vikhroli on 29.10.1997 in shift 0700 hours to 1500 hours on window No. 5, was involved in a trap by the vigilance team. A memorandum was issued on 19.1.1998 by Assistant Commercial Manager on the following charges: "Article I: He irregularly overcharged the decoy passengers by Rs. 8/- (Rs. Eight) on the sale of one II/O/Retn. ticket Ex. VK to ABH and one II/O/Retn. VK to Shelu/ Vashind. Article II: He was found with an excess of Rs. 21.75 (Rs. Twenty one and paise seventy five) in the Railwa...
Tarsem Lal Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ223CAT
1. Applicant an ex-Photographic Officer in AFFPD was proceeded against for a major penalty on the following articles of charge : Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, has entered into another marriage while his first wife is living. By his above act, Shri T.L. Verma has violated Rule 21(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby vilated Rule 3 (I)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, submitted false date of birth certificate and false experience certificates with a view to secure employment to the post of Assistant Information Officer in Directorate of Information & Publicity, Delhi Administration, Delhi in Feb. 96. By his above act, Shri T.L. Verma has failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby violated Rule 3(I)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, did not intimate to the administration the fact of a cr...
G.C. Jatav Vs. Secretary Cum Chairman, Standing
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ280CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' orders dated 26.7.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service as well as order dated 29.10.2001, issued by the Appellate Authority, upholding the punishment.2. On disclosure by one Sh. G.R. Baru, Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) was caught in a trap by the CBI, accepting illegal gratification, on which the applicant was proceeded against in a major penalty proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the following articles of charge: That Shri G.C. Jatav, while posted and functioning as Regional Director in Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), then in Regional Office, Chandigarh during 1996 failed to discharge his duties honestly and exhibited lark of integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he directed Shri G.R. Baru, Asstt. Regional Director, ESIC, Regional Office, Chandigarh to demand a bribe of Rs. 5,0007-from Shri Jasbir Singh, Consultant of M/s Mander Forging Pvt. Ltd., Mohali for s...
Rajendra Prasad Mishra and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ68CAT
1. By filing this O.A. the applicants have sought the following main reliefs: "(b) Set aside the impugned order dated 9.10.2001 Annexures A/4 and 9/10.11.2001 Annexure A/5. (c) Consequently, command the respondents to treat the Department of Post in Ministry of Communication as included in the Examination of Engineering Services, 2002 and, according grant five years age relaxation to the applicants in the said examination." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent No. 4. They have sent an application to appear in Engineering Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (in short' 'UPSC') in response to an advertisement dated 19.1.2002 (Annexure-A-7). As per Para 3(11) (b) of the said advertisement, the employees working in the following departments have been granted age relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit upto 35 years:-- Railway Department, Central Public Works Department, Engi...
Gobinda Prasad Mula Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ294CAT
1. Shri Gobinda Prasad Mula, has assailed the order dated 31.8.2000 (Annex p. 3) by which his services came to be terminated and has prayed for its quashment.2.This case was listed for hearing on admission stage. The pleadings are complete. We have hard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the records of this case. The respondents were directed to make available the records relating to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the learned Counsel for the respondents has expressed his inability to produce the same by stating that there was some mistake from his side, while the order dated 10.12.2003 was passed.3. The case of the applicant as may be succinctly put in, is that the applicant was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Assistant Manager on 1.4.93 in the Unit Run Canteen (for brevity URC) in the office of 22 Wing Air Force Station, Silchar, Assam, Subsequently he was appointed to the post of Manager, with effect from 1.9.93 while holding the post o...
Jagat Singh Vs. the Asst. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ1CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 24.1.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service and also an order dated 27.8.2001 passed in appeal, upholding the punishment. Re-instatement with all benefits has been sought.2. Before adverting to the legal contentions and their adjudication a brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the O.A. is relevant to be highlighted.3. Applicant is a Physical Education Teacher (PET) and is General Secretary of the Rastriya Kendriya Vidyalaya Adhyapak Sangh (Jagat Singh) (hereinafter referred to as RKVAS (J)).4. The aforesaid association voices the demands and other ancillary problems faced by the teachers before the respondents. By letter dated 10.3.1998 Central Executive Committee of the RKVAS(J) which has met on 22.2.1998 raised demands pertaining to amendment in the pay scale of Primary Teachers, revision of the pay scale of PET of KVS at par with NDSI, grant of same pay scale to the Music Teachers as of TGT scale and grant of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »