Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

S.C. Verma S/O Prithi Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Annexure A-2 dated 18.3.2003 whereby an enquiry has been initiated against applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; and Annexure A-1 dated 5.10.2005 whereby in pursuance of Tribunal's orders dated 16.8.2005 in OA No. 1728/2005 respondents have decided to restart the pending enquiry against applicant.2. It has been alleged on behalf of applicant that a departmental enquiry was initiated against applicant on 13.1.1999 for the same charge as contained in the present enquiry, i.e., for disobeying his transfer orders, in which the charge was partially proved and penalty of reduction of pay by two stages imposed upon applicant vide orders dated 20.9.2000. Applicant has also undergone the said penalty and completed the punishment by 2.4.2003. Respondents have now initiated the second departmental enquiry for the same charge against the established law that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same charge more than once.3. The learned Counsel of applicant stated tha...

All India Central Ground Water Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

By this OA applicants have challenged Annexure A-1 dated 17.2.2005 and Annexure A-2 date 19.1.2005 whereby applicants have been denied extension of the benefit of revision of pay scales of Draftsman in Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) w.e.f. 22.8.1973 (notionally) and w.e.f. 16.11.1978 (actually) at par with the Draftsman in the Ministry of Transport and Highways and CPWD on the ground that the benefit of 'the order of CAT/Court is normally restricted to the applicants only and the same benefit cannot be extended to the non-applicants'.2. Applicants have sought pay scales recommended by Arbitration Board notionally from 22.8.1973 and actually from 16.11.1978 which have been made applicable to Draftsman in various departments of the Government.Applicants have relied upon order dated 31.7.1992 in OA No. 1978/1988 All India P&T Civil Wing Non-Gazetted Employees Union v. Union of India and Ors.; order dated 25.3.1996 in OA No. 2020/1994 Dinkar rao Kawday and Ors. v. Union of India an...

Dr. (Mrs.) Diljeet Kaur Mokha W/O Vs. Union of India and ors. (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this third round of litigation, applicant challenges Office Order No. 502 of 2006 (M) dated 12.6.2006, whereby she was informed that her part-time engagement as Medical Officer shall stand terminated on account of attaining the age of 65 years w.e.f. the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which present notice is served, with all consequential benefits.2. Initially she has filed OA No. 1547/1992 challenging order dated 11.5.1992 terminating her services and seeking declaration that her initial appointment as Insurance Medical Officer was against permanent and substantive post. Said OA was disposed of vide order dated 10.7.1997 with direction that she should continue in her existing capacity till replaced by regular incumbent.3. Admitted facts of case are that applicant was initially engaged as part-time Medical Officer under ESI Scheme vide memorandum dated 15.6.1989, continuing usual terms & conditions, namely that part-time engagement will be purely temp...

Bhagwan Shah Son Late Sh. Phagu Vs. the Secretary, Central Board of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Seventeen applicants in this OA seek direction to respondents to grant them benefit of implementation of recommendations made by Vth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.1.1996 at par with similarly situated persons.2. Factual matrix of case is that Vth Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred as 'Vth CPC') vide para-66.165, with reference to Central Revenues Control Laboratories, observed as follows: 66.165 There are 193 posts of Laboratory Attenders with qualifications of Matric + Science in the scale of Rs. 950-1400 which will feeder to 17 posts of Lab. Clerks in the scale of Rs. 975-1540. The administrative Ministry has suggested merger of Lab. Clerk with UDC (Stores) and redesignation of Lab. Attenders as Lab. Assistants as well as upgrading 50% of them to the scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Fourth CPC had merged the then Lab. Attenders with their selection grade placing all in the scale of Rs. 950-1400. The general proposals for Labotratory Staff contain a three level structure for L...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Intergraph Technologies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007[5]STR8

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 6th August, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/818/04-NBA.2. The Respondent is alleged to have evaded excise duty and the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,43,113/-.3. The Respondent filed an appeal which was taken up by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and by her order dated 20th January, 2004, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh in view of the nature of the offence.4. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in which it appears to have contended that on the facts of the case since the Respondent did not disclose the correct information, maximum mandatory penalty ought to have been retained.5. Clearly, the argument of the Revenue proceeded on the basis that the amount could have been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) but on the facts of the case it ought not to have been reduced.6. The quantum of penalty is discret...

Shri Anand Prasad Sharma Vs. Shri Ram Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ558

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondents / tenants under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act) in respect of the tenanted premises forming part of property bearing No. 4767, Phatak Rashid Khan, Jogiwara Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi detailed in the site-plan in red on grounds of bona fide requirement. The eviction petition was filed in October, 1980. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the premises. The original tenant was Shri Ladli Prasad and his sons, S/Shri Ram Singh, Pooran Singh and Shyam Singh were imp leaded as the respondents. 3. The petitioner has set out his family as comprising of himself, two married sons, their wives and eight children, who were school-going. The accommodation available with the landlord at that stage was one small room of 10 x 7 the ground floor, one small room of 11 x 6, one small room of 9x 6one dallan of 9 ...

Shri Kapoor Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR786]

Manju Goel, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the orders of the Industrial Tribunal dated 10.4.2002 and 1.5.2003 whereby the Industrial Tribunal granted approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation (in short 'DTC') to the action of removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner, as per the allegations of the respondent in the charge-sheet issued to him dated 22.1.1993, was found to have not issued tickets to the passengers when he was checked by the checking staff. In the charge-sheet there were other allegations of misconduct. The Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent/DTC had held a legal and valid inquiry against the petitioner according to the principles of natural justice. This issue was decided vide order dated 10.4.2002 in favor of the DTC. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter went into the next issue as to whether one month's wa...

Daijeet Singh Anand Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]299ITR353(Delhi)

ORDERAnil Kumar, J.CM No. 11433/2006Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.W.P. (C). No. 14558/2006 & CM. No. 11432/20061. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18-5-2005 of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India whereby on consideration of the complaint of the petitioner, written statement of the Chartered Accountants, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the rejoinder of the petitioner, the Institute Council was prima facie of the opinion that the Chartered Accountants, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not guilty of any professional or other misconduct and, thereforee, the complaint had not been proceeded further and an amount of Rs. 100 deposited by the petitioner along with the complaint was ordered to be refunded.2. The petitioner filed the complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 committed blatant misconduct with respect to income-tax proceedings by ignoring the provisions of Section 184(2) of the Income Tax Act, ...

Ganga Parshad Tiwari Vs. Khyber Pass Mess Hostel Committee and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR933]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated 31.1.2002 of Labour Court-III, Karkardooma, Delhi.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner made an application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming an amount of Rs.1,02,451/- from the respondent based on an award dated 14.12.1989 passed by Labour Court-VII, Tis Hazari, management whereby he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity. The management had not reinstated him despite the award, thereforee, he claimed entire back wages, damages in lieu of quarters @ Rs. 150/- p.m. for the entire period.3. The claim was contested by the respondent respondent's plea was that the application was not maintainable because petitioner was not a workman since the respondent was not an industry. It was contended that petitioner was working as a part-time chowkidar with the Hostel Mess Committee.4. The Tribunal observed that in view of judgment of Su...

Om Vir Gupta Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ229

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner, a Conductor with the Respondent No.1 Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 29.8.1997 passed by the DTC awarding him a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, at the culmination of disciplinary proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with DTC on 22.1.1983. On 14.12.1993 the petitioner received a charge sheet in which it was alleged that on 2.12.1993 when the petitioner was on duty on Bus No. 9611 en-route Mandola to Loni Road Crossing, the checking staff boarded the bus and found that the petitioner, after having accepted full fare from five passengers, had issued tickets of a lesser value causing a loss of Rs. 4/- to the DTC. It is not denied by the DTC that during the course of the enquiry, the passengers who were traveling in the bus on the date of incident deposed and one of them in fact depose...