Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court December 2005 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.
K.K. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ273CAT
1. K.K. Mukherjee, a retired Chief Loco Inspector, Kharagpur, S.E.Railway has filed this O.A. being aggrieved by the order of recovery of Rs. 3,56,870 (Rupees three lakh fifty six thousand eighty seven only) (Annexure-A/4) from his D.C.R.G. due to "over payment" being wrong and illegal and has also alleged that the calculation of the amount of D.C.R.G./Leave Encashment/Commutation of pension in incorrect and bad.2. The case of the applicant is that whereas the respondents have alleged that his pay was stepped up during the period from 27.06.92 to 30.09.04, in reality his pay was correctly stepped up from 1.4.1988 in compliance of the judgement dated 14.12.92 rendered in O.A. No.984/1989. He has submitted that the benefit of stepping up of pay which he was granted by virtue of the said judicial order cannot be taken away from him by the respondents on their own and by doing so, they have violated statutory rules and the law of the land. He had also filed a representation dated 11.10.04...
Ramavtar Meena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ188CAT
1. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents rejecting his representation against adverse ACR for the year ending 31.03.02, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the following reliefs: (A) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the orders at Annexures-A and Al by holding it illegal, null and void, without any justification and against the settled principle of law and violative of principle of audiulterm pulterm and principle of Nemo Firut repente turpissimus and further be pleased to direct the respondents to expunge the same with all other consequential benefits including directing for holding review DPC for considering him for promotion to SAG level. (C) Any other further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to the orders of Tribunal in O.A. 1093/ 89 before the Principal Bench, which were also upheld by the Apex Court, the applicant was app...
Tulsiram Sonaji Parihar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ263CAT
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashing and setting aside of the penalty order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.1.2004. The applicant was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 levelling certain imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour against the applicant on dated 2/3.11.2000. He was asked to submit his representation with regard to the charges levelled against him within 10 days of the service of the charge sheet on him. He had submitted his representation on dated 7.6.2001 contending that he was not supplied with all the documents asked for by him and the charges levelled against him were not correct and did not amount to misconduct on his part. The Disciplinary Authority after considering his representation vide order dated 30.9.2003 holding that the Charge Nos. 1 & 2 were proved, imposed the penalty of withholding of the increments for a per...
Dhanraj Narayan Gharate Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ296CAT
1. The O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2003 of dismissal from service passed by Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Dhule, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.11.2003 passed by Director of Postal Services, Aurangabad rejecting the appeal and for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet dated 06.01.2003 and its proceeding of inquiry and the appellate order dated 18.10.2002 directing inquiry to be held ab initio by issuing fresh charge-sheet passed by Director of Postal Services, Aurangabad.2. The applicant's case is that he was appointed as ED Packer at Kheda EDSO. He was continuing the post of ED Packer Kheda till his dismissal from service. It is contended that Sub Divisional Inspector (P) issued charge-sheet on 12.02.1998 with 2 charges as under:- Shri Dhanraj Narayan Gharte ED Packer Kheda was working as ED Packer EBSO Kheda from April 1980 to 09.09.1985. On 09.09.1985 regular ED SPM was on leave. He worked as EDSPM Kheda on that place. On 09...
Rahul Raman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ268CAT
1. By filing this Original Application the applicant has claimed the following main reliefs: 8.2 to quash the penalty order dated 25.11.2004 communicated on 6.12.2004 in the interest of justice, 8.3 to quash the charge sheet dated 20.11.2002 in the interest of justice, 8.4 to hold that the entire charge sheet dated 20.11.2004 and consequent penalty order dated 25.11.2004 communicated on 6.12.2004 is an out come of mala fides of respondent No. 6, 8.5 to hold that the action on part of the respondent No. 6 in harassing, humiliating and victimizing the applicant, is bad in the eyes of law.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant after joining the Income-tax Department as an IRS officer was posted as Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, at Mumbai. At that time the respondent No.6 was the Commissioner of Income Tax posted at Mumbai. The applicant had undertaken a survey under Section 133-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.1997 and 23.12.1997 in the case of M/s. Advance Metal Powd...
Popatlal M. Vyas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ257CAT
1. The applicant who is working as Postal Assistant at Kheralu, has again approaches this Tribunal challenging the punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority (in short DA) and upheld by the Appellate Authority (in short AA). His case has a chequered history. He was served with a charge-sheet on dated 17/ 19.1.1994 leveling certain imputations of failing to forward a cash bag containing Rs. 15,000 to the Head Office and thereby causing cash loss of Rs. 15,000 to the Government. Simultaneously an F.I.R. was also lodged with the Police and a criminal case bearing No. 258 of 1994 was filed in the Magistrate Court. On his submitting the representation on the charges leveled against him, the DA vide its order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 15,000 and withholding of one increment for thirty months. After unsuccessful appeal and review application, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA/252/1997. This Tribunal vide its order dated 25.1.2002 quash...
M.M. Rathod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ212CAT
1. The following relief has been sought by the applicant in the present case: (a) Call for the record of proceedings from the file of the UPSC regarding the Select Committee meeting record of 04.12.1987; peruse the same; (b) Issue rule nisi and admit the Original Application for final hearing at the earliest. (c) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.7.2005 of UPSC respondent No. 2 referred herein above and marked as Annexure-I and direct the applicant to be considered in select committee meeting on 4.12.1987 and direct him to be selected with appropriate grading; (d) Direct the respondent No. 3 to issue notification promoting the applicant to IPS under Sub-regulation 3 of Regulation 7 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1965 in the select committee meeting held on 4.12.1987 by inclusion of his name in the notification dated 21.9.1988 and grant him year of allotment of 1984 in the interest of justice; (e) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential b...
Dr. Bhaskar Ranjan Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ253CAT
1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: (i) to call for the records leading to the issue of the office orders related to (a) the copy of the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bangalore (b) F. No. 12-15/2000-A & A dated 8.02.2001 as contained in Annexure-A07, (c) No. 25-38/2000/Estt dated 21.08.2001 as contained in Annexure-A08,(d)F.No. 12-15/2000-A&Adated 13.09.2004 as contained in Annexure-A12 and on perusal; (ii) to set aside the orders related to (a) vide Memorandum No. 25-38/2000/Estt dated 21.08.2001 as contained in Annexure-A08 and (b) vide order F. No. 12-15/2000-A & A dated 13.09.2004 as contained in Annexure-A12 and (iii) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Culture) from the feeder grade as Superintending Anthropologist (Culture) considering date of promotion of juniors (Dr. M.K. Ra...
Nandkumar Rushikant Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ98CAT
1. The O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the punishment order of compulsory retirement passed by the Competent Authority holding the applicant guilty in the departmental proceedings.2. The applicant entered the postal department as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in 1984 and working as such upto 1994. He was appointed as Postman from 29.7.1994 until his compulsory retirement from 15.1.2004. He was served with a charge memo on 2.7.2003 alleging that he while functioning as Postman No. 8 at Parbhani HO during the month of February 2003 was entrusted with two money order amounting to Rs. 1000/- Rs. One thousand only payable to addressees for payment. He showed them as paid without being paid either to the payees or to the remitter and rendered returns accordingly. By the said act the official has contravened Rule 127 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part I Sixth Edition and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS Conduct Rules, ...
Jitendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ393CAT
1. In this case the applicant has challenged the memorandum dated 6.4.2005 (Ann.-Al) passed by respondent No. 4 i.e. the Under Secretary (Northern Region), Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, New Delhi whereby representation of the applicant dated 1.2.2005 was rejected and he was communicated that request for change of service/post cannot be acceded at this stage. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Counsel for the applicant was apprised to address this Tribunal as to how this Tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Accordingly the matter was heard at admission stage.2. Before noticing the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it will be useful to notice few relevant facts which are not in dispute. The Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as SSC) issued advertisement for Combined Graduate Level (Preliminary) Examination, 2003 which was published in Employment News dated 25-31 Januar...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›