Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE PARACKEN: 1. By this Original Application, the applicant has challenged the impugned Annexure A-1 Order No.DE.7/N/59/TGT/VIG/NGV/2007/ 2513 dated 31.8.2010 by which he was dismissed from service with immediate effect invoking the provisions contained in Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances of the case “where any penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge” and impose any penalty after affording him an opportunity to make representation on the proposed penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as TGT English in Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya, Ludlow Castle No.2, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi, FIR No.25 of 2007 dated 24.4.2007 was filed against him under the provisions of Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corrpution Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Delhi convicted him, vide h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ390CAT
1. This O.A. is directed an order dated 28.5.2004, whereby the period from 26.7.85 to 5.5.88 has been restricted to subsistence allowance paid to applicant.2. Applicant who retired on superannuation as Postal Assistant on 26.2.96 was accorded provisional pension and DCRG but his leave encashment was withheld.3. Applicant was placed under suspension on 26.7.85 due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case RC-11/84 under Sections 420/467/471/IPC, through the suspension was revoked by an order dated 4.5.98.4. Applicant filed O.A.1832/98 before the Tribunal for release of his retiral benefits. By an order dated 6.4.99 with a direction to calculate the benefits and interest O.A. was disposed of.5. By an order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges for lack of sufficient evidence and as offence of conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.6. O.A. 64/2004 was filed by applicant for treatment of suspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
G. George Paracken: The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 letter No. 5/23/2007-CS.I (U) dated 31st May, 2010 of the Respondent No. 1, namely, Department of Personnel and Training (`DOPandT’ for short) rejecting his representation dated 14.05.2010 for grant of ad hoc promotion to the post of Under Secretary on the grounds that (i) he was not clear from vigilance angle (ii) a criminal case is pending against him in the Special Court of CBI and (iii) the departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are underway.2. The relevant incidences and events in this case in the chronological order are delineated here. The applicant is a Section Officer in the cadre of Central Secretariat Service (`CSS’ for short). He joined the service on 06.07.1998 and was posted in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. While he was working there, he was placed under suspension w.e..f. 06.12.2000 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of Rules...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri Rakesh Kumar, the applicant in the OA, is an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Officer of 1972 batch. The instant OA is the 3rd round of litigation of the applicant mainly on his grievance against the parallel departmental inquiry initiated in the Charge Memorandum dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure-A1) and seeking the same to be kept in abeyance till the completion of the trial of the applicant in the Criminal Court on the Charge Sheet number 12/2007 dated 24.12.2007 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI in short) to prosecute him for the offences under Section 120 B of IPC read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) with Sub Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act), as both are based on same sets of facts, allegations, documents and witnesses. 2. His first visit to the Tribunal was in the OA No.1876/2008 which was decided on 22.12.2009. The Tribunal in the said OA considered the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The applicant is a confirmed DANICS Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1992. He on completion of four years w.e.f. 01.07.1996became eligible along with his batch officers to get time scale in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500.Vide order dated 28.05.2002 (Annexure-A2), 51 of the DANICS Grade-II officers got the said pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, 8 officers w.e.f. 01.07.1996, but the applicant was not allowed the said pay scale for which he submitted his representation dated 29.06.2001 (Annexure-A4). Further the respondents promoted officers of DANICS to Grade-I (selection grade) in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 vide order dated 17.04.2003 (Annexure-A5) but the applicant was not granted the said benefit. He represented to the respondent in his letter dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure-A6)and followed up with reminders on 17.10.2007 (Annexure-A8) and 01.09.2009 (Annexure-A9).It is noticed that due to minor penalty charge sheet and a criminal case where the sanction of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. On the issue of applicant’s claim for promotion on adhoc basis to the next higher post, this is his one more round of litigation. Earlier, in the OA No.3851/2010, he approached this Tribunal with the prayers to consider him for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Technical) on ad hoc basis and the OA was decided on 5.4.2011 in following terms :- “2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that the case of the applicant for promotion on ad hoc basis to the post of Jt. Director (Technical) has been referred to the Services Department to consider as to whether he can be given ad hoc promotion. 3. At this stage, we only direct the respondents to expedite consideration of the applicant for ad hoc promotion on the post of Jt. Director (Technical). They will deal with the matter expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks from today. The OA is disposed of. No costs.” 2. Pursuant to the above dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
2. Order passed on 30.3.2005 by the disciplinary authority whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the applicant and also the appellate order dated 3.3.2006 confirming the punishment are being assailed by the applicant in the present OA.3. While working as JTO, a trap on the complaint by one Shri Ravinder Kaushik has been laid down by the CBI in which one Shri Balbir Singh has been allegedly found to have accepted the bribe from Shri Ravinder Kaushik for providing a telephone connection. It was also transpired during the raid proceeding that Shri Balbir Singh disclosed the name of the applicant as the person on whose behalf the bribe was demanded by him.4. As the CBI trap has failed and the investigation would not have culminated into a charge-sheet before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction on the recommendation of CBI, a disciplinary proceeding initiated and it was hold that the applicant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 800/- on 28.4.1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)(3)SLJ54CAT
1. By virtue of this OA, Constable in Delhi Police has challenged an order passed by the respondents on 7.7.2004 whereby his services had been terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.Also assailed is an order dated 27.1.2005 whereby his request for reinstatement has been turned down on the ground that he has concealed the fact of involvement in the criminal case intentionally, which amounts to misleading the Department.2. A brief factual matrix of the case transpires that the applicant had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) and Constable (Dog Handler) in pursuance of an Advertisement issued by the Delhi Police in 2002. He was called for the written test and on qualifying it, he had appeared for interview on 23.8.2002. On 24.9.2002 with all credentials when the applicant appeared before the respondents, he was intimated thereafter on 14.1.2003 that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Constable (Executive) and was asked to fill up the att...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(92)SLJ163CAT
1. By virtue of this OA applicant has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 29.8.2005, whereby in pursuance of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on expiry of period of notice of one month, services of applicant shall stand terminated.3. Brief factual matrix in this case is that in pursuance of an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Grade-II of DASS applicant made an application and after the examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, for short) in November, 2000 a memorandum dated 17.6.2004 was served upon applicant from the office of Medical Superintendent, Loknayak Hospital, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT Delhi), asking him to submit his testimonials. Immediately thereafter, applicant was served with a memorandum dated 5.8.2004, an offer of appointment, where he was appointed to a temporary post of Grade-II of DASS, Head Clerk, in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 subject to ...
Tag this Judgment!