Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... the main grounds on which the applicant has challenged the said punishment are as under: (a) the complaint committee was chaired by a person junior to the applicant and even the other members were much lower in rank than .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... in his rejoinder, apart from reiterating and elaborating on the averments made by the applicant in his main application, he has stated that recovery in letter dated 06.05.2003 is without good and sufficient reason. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... the appellate authority noted various points raised by the applicant in its order as follows: the appellant has mainly pleaded that (1) the order passed by the disciplinary authority is defective, arbitrary and unfortunate in law being non speaking. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
order mrs. meera chhibber, member (j) 1. applicant has challenged order dated 11.5.2011 whereby his candidature for the post of constable in delhi police has been cancelled (page 16). 2. the brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he had applied for the post of constable (executive) male in delhi police in the year 2009. after he cleared all the tests/examination, he was provisionally selected to the said post, subject to verification of character and antecedents etc. applicant was acquitted in fir no. 147/2003. as far as fir no. 200/2004 is concerned, his name was not even included as an accused yet he was issued a show cause notice on the ground that he has no regard for woman and had indulged in a heinous offence. the allegations show that applicant is aggressive in nature, therefore, he should explain why his candidature should not be cancelled. applicant immediately gave reply to the said show cause notice by placing on record the judgment dated 25.11.2005 whereby he had been acquitted in fir no. 147 dated 8.9.2003 and in the other fir 200/2004, he was not even sent for trial because he was not found involved during investigation. he had thus submitted that it is wrong to state that applicant has aggressive nature. he has thus prayed that the show cause notice should be quashed. however, without considering his defence, the disciplinary authority cancelled his candidature vide order dated 11.5.2011 in a mechanical manner. being aggrieved, applicant filed oa no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. applicant is a commercial clerk working in the agra division in the north central railway. he commenced service as booking clerk in 1986 and was later on promoted as head booking clerk. while working in the agra station, a charge sheet was issued to him, on 29.11.1999. it has been alleged that on 28.07.1999, while under surveillance, the chief vigilance inspector and his team had found him engaged in certain malpractices while in the booking office, which was sufficient to throw doubts about his integrity. the statement of allegations referred to three incidents as lapses and although the initial charge sheet referred to only two charges, this was corrected, including a third charge as well. we will go to the details of the allegations a little later.2. applicant had denied the charges, and thereupon inquiry had been arranged. on the basis of the report submitted by the officer so nominated, sr. divisional commercial manager, jhansi had, by his order dated 19.04.2002, imposed a penalty of removal on him. the appellate order dated 22.10.2003 (annexure a-2) shows that infirmities, as highlighted by the applicant about the proceedings, had been seriously noted and resultantly the orders were reviewed, and the penalty order was substituted by providing for a punishment of 'reversion in the lowest grade i.e. rs. 3200-4900 (rsrp) fixing his pay at the lowest at rs. 3200 for ten years'. a revision had been filed therefrom but by annexure a-3 order dated 19.04.2006, the chief .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... alleged to have committed error in evaluation of the answer sheets, totaling of the marks, and the manner of applying the system of moderation adopted in the evaluation process for the answer books of the applicants for the main examination of civil services examination, 2010 (cse-2010 in short), which in their opinion has caused great sufferings to them as they have not become successful in the said examination. ..... from paragraph 15 of annexure a-8 that such an expression was absent as paragraph 15 indicates that candidates, who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the main examination; and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the main examination (written) as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for personality test. ..... it is submitted that apart from referring to the preliminary and main examinations, which are proposed, nothing further is indicated as to the manner, in which the evaluation of the papers will be undertaken. ..... civil judge (junior division) main examination-2003. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... the learned counsel of respondents further contended that the case of manohar lal (supra) is distinguishable as the charge against him was regarding being found under the influence of liquor, while the main charge against applicant herein has been that he was found to have consumed liquor while on duty. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... in their counter reply, the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant and reiterated the contents of the charge against him.they have further relied upon mainly the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to rebut the various grounds taken by the applicant. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... he was arrested and got medically examined from sanjay gandhi memorial hospital. ..... wherein the main question was related to interpretation and scope of rule 10 (4) of ccs (cca) rules, 1965 and its consequent validity. ..... the main pleas put forth by the defaulter in his representation are also not tenable for the reasons recorded above.6. ..... the main pleas put forth by the defaulter in his defence statement had already been examined in detail by the enquiry officer. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. by this oa, applicant has challenged order dated 10.9.2007 whereby respondent no. 4 has been asked to act as head of department (hod) of ent in supersession of previous orders. he has also sought that applicant should be allowed to continue as hod of ent department.2. the brief facts as stated by the applicant are that applicant and respondent no. 4 both belong to non-teaching specialist sub-cadre of chs. as per the seniority list issued on 1.1.2005 (page 13-23), applicant is shown at sl. no. 77 while respondent no. 4 is shown at sl.no. 78 in the said seniority list. the seniority list has never been challenged by respondent no. 4. therefore, it is admitted fact that applicant was senior to him in the non-teaching specialist sub-cadre of ent. it is stated by the applicant that it was only on 12.9.2000 that applicant was posted at sardarjung hospital. earlier since respondent no. 4 was senior most in safdarjung hospital in the ent department, he was made hod w.e.f. 8.9.2000 but after applicant joined, since he was the senior most, case was processed to designate the applicant as hod, which is evident from page 107. accordingly on 14.9.2000, an order was issued in suppression of previous order dated 8.9.2000 and dr. a.k.rai, sr. ent specialist was asked to function as hod with immediate effect and till further order (page 24). from 14.9.2000, applicant was functioning as hod, but to his utter surprise, another order was issued on 10.9.2007 without any justification, by .....
Tag this Judgment!