Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
shekhar agarwal, member (a): 1. the applicants, who are 13 in number, have sought the following relief:- (a) quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to grant the next financial upgradation to the applicants in accordance with macp scheme by including the length of service rendered by the applicants as constable (exe.) with all consequential benefits. award costs of the proceedings and pass any other order/direction which this honble tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and ircumstances of the case. 2. facts of the case are that the applicants joined delhi police as constable (exe.) on different dates between 1977 and 1989. they were absorbed as constables (drivers) on different dates between 1983 and 1998. subsequently, all of them earned promotions as head constables and some of them were also promoted as asstt. sub-inspectors. while the cases of all the applicants are similar, for the sake of convenience, facts of applicant no. 1 (lakhwinder singh) are being discussed below:- 2.1 applicant joined delhi police as constable (exe.) on 05.04.1980. he was absorbed as constable (dvr.) on 01.03.1984. he earned promotion as head constable (dvr.) on 01.01.1988 and as asi (dvr.) on 11.10.2007. w.e.f. 09.08.1999 government of india had introduced assured career progression (acp) scheme on the recommendations of the vth central pay commission(cpc). the said scheme was introduced to deal with problem .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
sudhir kumar, member (a) 1. these two oas came to be linked up together for hearing after the orders dated 16.12.2011 were passed in ma no. 3369/2011, filed in oa no.4482/2011, praying for the matters to be clubbed together for hearing. ma no.3369/2011 for clubbing of the two cases having been allowed, these cases were heard together, and were reserved for orders together, and are, therefore, being disposed of through this common order. in order to trace the history of the origin of this controversy, we may borrow from the judgment of the honble delhi high court dated 10.08.2010 in delhi transport corporation vs. madhu bhushan anand, cwp no.14027/2009; in which in the opening paragraph itself the honble delhi high court had summarized the genesis of the problem as given below:- with the promulgation of the delhi municipal corporation act 1957 and the constitution of the municipal corporation of delhi, municipal functions in delhi except ndmc area and the area falling under the jurisdiction of the cantonment board were vested in the municipal corporation of delhi, which included the function of providing public transport in the city of delhi. as a separate wing of the corporation, the delhi transport undertaking was constituted with a separate budget and separate staff. as the city of delhi grew, it was thought advisable to corporatize public transport in delhi and thus the delhi transport corporation was formed as a body corporate and it took over the functioning of the delhi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... mohiddin (supra), there are two kinds of traps, a legitimate trap, where the offence has already been born and is in its course, and `an illegitimate trap, where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is offered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it, or not. ..... singh and that the circumstances were different as the giver of the money remained unidentified and it was not clear whether money was collected for and on behalf of authorized officer on account of challan or for compoundable offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... it is quite well settled principle of law that if the charge-sheet contains an allegation of commission of the offence it should be taken that the disciplinary authority had started with a bias and prejudged the case. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... in view of the nature of offence committed by the constable and embarrassment to the nation, the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be considered harsh and may be imposed now. 8. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
sudhir kumar, member (a): this o.a. has been filed by the applicant with a delhi address and she has impugned the action of the respondents and respondent no.2 in particular, in having denied her appointment for the post of primary teacher with respondent no.3, and not having considered her candidature in the obc category, even though her marks were more than that of the last selected obc candidate. 2. the applicant had first filed an application for appointment as a primary teacher in mcd under general category through application no. 160078, but later requested for cancellation of the same vide her application dated 18.02.2009 (annexure-c). in that letter, she had admitted to have appeared in the selection test for the post of primary teacher post code 016/2008 with roll no.1632081 through an admit card sent to her at her address in sonepat (haryana), and claimed that it was a wrong address, and that her admit card sent there had been delivered to her by an employee of a coaching centre in sonepat. in the very same letter, she admitted to have filled up another form no.41001518, and had requested that all the mistakes pertaining to her personal records may be corrected as per the details given in her application no.41001518. she had signed the application by giving her roll number below her signatures as 1618602. she had also sent a similar letter to the chairman of delhi subordinate services selection board (dsssb, in short) through letter dated 25.02.2009 (annexure-d). 3. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
sudhir kumar, member (a): the applicant was a candidate for appointment in the delhi police, against the post of constable (exe) male, and cleared the physical and written examination conducted for recruitment in the year 2009. however, later his candidature for the post of constable (exe.) male was cancelled by the deputy commissioner of police, recruitment cell, delhi, on behalf of commissioner of police. the applicant represented against that on 29.04.2011, but the respondents have through their order dated 17.06.2011 rejected his appeal/representation also, through annexure a-1, page 19 of the oa. hence the applicant is before us with the following prayers:- a) direct the respondents to withdraw their orders of cancellation of the candidature of the applicant as constable (exe.) male in delhi police and grant him an appointment of constable in delhi police; b) direct the respondents to grant him the appointment from the back date as that of his other counterparts/batchmates; c) grant all consequential relief(s) to the applicant relating to the issue; d) award cost of the proceedings in favour of the applicant and against the respondents; e) to pass any such other order(s) as this honble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favour of the applicant. 2. the applicant had been assigned a roll number for the said test conducted for the recruitment for the year 2009, and he first cleared physical test prescribed, and later on cleared the written .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... we have gone through rule-15(2) of the said rules, which reads as follows:- in cases in which a preliminary enquiry disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the additional commissioner of police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
oral: george paracken, member (j): 1. this original application has been filed by the applicant at the stage of furnishing him the draft disagreement memo by the disciplinary authority, which is signed on behalf of the president of india in this case. the articles of charges against the applicant read as under: "article i an agreement conferring octroi and transit pass fees collection rights for the year 2003-2004 was signed with m/s singh and sons, dahegaon, tehasil-soner, district nagpur by shri ajay kumar chaudhary, while functioning as ceo, kamptee cantonment, kamptee during the period from 24.09.2001 to 05.02.2004. this agreement was to be signed by two board members of the cantonment board and counter signed by the ceo with prior approval of the board. however, shri ajay kumar chaudhary, in violation of this provision unauthorizedly signed this agreement inlieu of the two members of the cantonment board as required under the cantonment act, 1924. he also deleted a vital clause in the agreement while signing this agreement adversely affecting the interest of the armed forces and the canonment board. shri chaudhary as ceo, kamptee was duty to bound to follow the various provisions of the cantonment act ad protect the interest of the cantonment board and also the armed forces. thus, by failing to do so, shri ajay kumar chaudhary, as the then ceo, kamptee cantonment board, kamptee has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
g. george paracken, member (j): the basic grievance of the applicant in this original application is that she has not been considered for promotion to the post of assistant legislative counsel ( alc for short) along with the 5th respondent, shri y.s. rao in the same dpc and thereby her date of promotion has been advanced. she has, therefore, filed this original application seeking the following reliefs:- (a) quash and set aside the dpc and its recommendations dt. 17.02.2012, consequently regularization of promotion of the respondent no.5 as alc being ineligible and void abs-initio be quashed and set aside; (b) direct the respondent nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate steps to consider the applicant along with the respondent no.5 in accordance with law for regularization of promotion as alc for panel year 2012-13; and (c) grant any other or further order(s) as this honble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. the brief background of the case is that both the applicant as well as the respondent no.5 were initially appointed as assistant (legal) on 06.04.2000 and 09.06.2000 respectively. the 5th respondent was further promoted as superintendent (legal) on regular basis with effect from 08.12.2005 and as alc (grade-iv) on ad hoc basis with effect from 26.12.2011. similarly, the applicant was also promoted as superintendent (legal) on regular basis with effect from 09.01.2006 and further promoted as alc (grade-iv) on ad hoc basis with effect from .....
Tag this Judgment!