Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: main memory Court: central administrative tribunal cat delhi Page 1 of about 641 results (0.049 seconds)

Mahavir Vats Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Hq)-kvs and Another

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... he was chargesheeted on 10.01.1994 broadly on the following two allegations:- (i) that while working as udc during 1992-1994 he simultaneously acted as manager to sevti devi memorial vidyalaya, mahavir enclave, palam, new delhi and looked after the day-to-day affairs of the said vidyalaya at the cost of his official duties and the said vidyalaya was a source of income to him. ..... the applicant in his representation took the plea that he was only managing day-to-day affairs of the sevti devi memorial vidyalaya as the honorary manager and was not drawing any honorarium or income from the said school. ..... the aa has come to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence on record, the applicant, in fact, was acting as the honorary manager of sevti devi memorial vidyalaya and was also running the bata agency. ..... mahavir vats place of agency : palam village address of agency : bata agency wz/6037 palam village main road palam colony, new delhi - 110 045. ..... mahavir vats, ex-udc, kvs,hq acted as a honorary manager of sevti devi memorial vidyalaya at mahavir enclave, palam. ..... the vidyalaya is running in the memory of his mother smt. ..... mahavir vats runs bata agency at rz-188, main road, palam colony. ..... at wz-603, palam village, main road, palam colony, new delhi-45 and the said agency was a source of income to him. 2. .....

Parveen Kumar S/O Baldev Ram Vs. Commissioner of Police, Jt.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... , pw-5 acp o.p.mishra deposed that he had thrown the money in bushes, is concerned, it is a matter of common sense that when witnesses are examined after a lapse of time, they may not give a kaleidoscopic view of the whole event, as memory fades with time. .....

Asi Pale Ram and Others Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Phq, I.P. Esta ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... the fsl report regarding the cd has already been quoted earlier according to which there are some inconsistencies between the video and the memory card and the official court witness has stated that in the absence of original recorded footage or original recording device, it cannot be confirmed that no editing/ alteration/ interpolation/ tampering or deletion ..... it is conceded that some frames at the starting of video clip and at end of video clips of dvc were omitted from the corresponding video clips of memory card but it is the contention of the court witness that the remaining portion was intact which proved that the recording showing the money transaction was genuine and there ..... by the respondents that on account of non-production of original video camera and tapes which provided for a part chance of manipulation as well as non-appearance of main prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority did not inflict the severest of punishment but imposed a lighter punishment. ..... no editing/ alteration/ interpolation / tempering or deletion have been observed in the clips recorded in the memory card m-1 to m-5 as such, however, in absence of the original recorded footage or original recording device it can ..... in the inquiry, the complainant shri chetan prakash and some main pws do not turn up and under the provisions of rule 16 (3) of delhi police (punishment and appeal) rules, 1980, the inquiry officer takes into consideration their statements made in a preliminary inquiry conducted by .....

Virendra Singh Khaira Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministr ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... the main submission of the applicants counsel was that the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that despite decision of the competent authority to close the disciplinary case against the applicant, due to the advice tendered by .....

K.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Another

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... before we may deal with the main issue and the rival contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be useful to make a mention of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, on which the applicant is to be departmentally tried. ..... it may also be mentioned that the main charge against the applicant is that, like others, he initiated procurement of materials such as soap/duster for wc staff, electrical and mechanical items i.e. .....

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Jagdish Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. applicant, a constable in delhi police, by virtue of this oa has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (da) in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings, whereby a major penalty of permanent forfeiture of two years' approved service along with reduction of pay has been inflicted upon him and the period of suspension has been treated as not spent on duty. also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 13.8.2005, upholding the punishment.2. applicant while posted in traffic branch of delhi police on a raid conducted by the prg cell was alleged to have connivance with one delhi home guard (dhg) constable found to be collecting money from the bus driver and as recovery was made from dhg constable grave misconduct was alleged on the part of applicant.3. during the course of inquiry the conductor of the bus has not supported the prosecution and stated that nobody has demanded money, whereas prg raid personnel stated that the home guard constable disclosed to have collected money on the direction of applicant. a charge when framed, on defence culminated into a finding of guilt, which, on being represented to, resulted in a major penalty upon applicant, which on affirmation in appeal, gives rise to the present oa.4. it is pertinent to note that the dhg constable was neither cited as a witness in the summary of allegations nor was examined in the course of inquiry and the prg team did not record his statement at the time of raid.5. learned counsel of applicant though .....

Dinesh Kumar Patnaik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in : (2008)(1)SLJ134CAT

..... the main contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the parties have been discussed, but for challenge to the proceedings on the ground of delay. .....

Anoop Kumar (Roll No. 434444) S/O Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... it is urged that the narration of facts given in the fir, even if accepted in its entirety, would not show that the applicant was the main accused, as has been opined in the impugned order; the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant was not a heinous or a very serious crime; and that in similar circumstances the respondents chose to appoint one ..... 526/2004 under section 308/325/34 ipc, ps r.k.puram, delhi shows that while deciding the above-said criminal case all the main prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ..... relevant part of the show cause notice dated 11.12.2007 reads as follows: accordingly, your case has been examined in detail and found that while deciding the above-said criminal case all the main prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ..... further, you were the main accused and you along with other accused have succeeded in winning over the 14 witnesses including complainant. ..... further, you were the main accused and you along with other accused have succeeded in winning over the 14 witnesses including complainant. .....

All India Association of Asstt. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... the official respondents as also the interveners have in their respective counters filed to the main oa vehemently opposed the continuance of the interim order and have laid much emphasis on the point that paras 81.16 and 81.17 ibed separately deal with applicants on the one hand and the persons belonging to the ..... since the pleas raised by the parties in their main pleadings are the same as have been raised by them on thequestion of interim relief the learned counsel for both the parties agreed that this oa may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. ..... this action of the respondents is assailed mainly on the ground that according to the recommendations of the vth central pay commission the said upgradation could have been done only after constitution of subordiante statistial service which, when constituted, would give entry to ..... it is now well-settled that more statutory instructions cannot have the effect of altering or amending the main statutory rules. ..... statutory instructions can be issued only to supplement and not to alter the main rules.15. .....

Smt. Savita Malhotra W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. in this oa, applicant impugns railway board's order of 17.3.2003 wherein her representation assigning seniority in accordance with para 312 of irem volume i was rejected.2. briefly, the facts are that applicant was appointed as ldc in rdso, lucknow, on compassionate grounds, due to sudden death of her young husband. subsequently, at her own request, she was transferred to railway board's office at delhi on specific terms and unambiguous conditions which included that she would be considered for absorption after one year, subject to passing the prescribed typewriting test.3. at the outset, before arguments began, shri a.p. sahay, counsel of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that this case was barred by limitation. he contended that applicant was given appointment on compassionate grounds, without passing qualifying examination etc.and given an ad hoc appointment order on 20.8.1983 on special terms and conditions. after accepting appointment in 1983 she worked at lucknow and then came to new delhi. now for the first time she questions her appointment letter in representation dated 18.9.2002 and letters dated 20.3.2003 and 24.3.2003. it be noted that the first representation was submitted 18 years after she joined service. it is thus hopelessly time barred.4. the counsel for applicant, shri b.s. mainee, then began arguments and forcefully contended that injustice had been meted out to applicant by railway authorities on the following grounds: (i) the initial .....