Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ84CAT
..... in the present case, the main grievance of the applicant is that other similarly situated persons like the three persons mentioned above who have also been re-employed either on the same date as the applicant or later have been given higher ..... one of the main contentions raised by mr. u. ..... the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the pay of the private respondents has been fixed prior to receipt of government of india letter dated 20.8.1990.the relevant portion of the letter dated 20.8.1990 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ331CAT
1. the applicant is aggrieved by the order issued by the respondents dated 22.5.1995 imposing on him a penalty of 25% cut in pension otherwise payable to him for a period of five years with immediate effect. this order has been passed by the president after holding a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant under rule 14 of the ccs (cca) rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 rules'). the applicant retired from service of the respondents on 31.7.1994 and the impugned order has been passed by the president under rule 9 of the ccs (pension) rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the pension rules').2. a preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the o.a. is barred by limitation. the applicant has filed m.a. 76/2001 praying for condonation of delay of the period from 1.3.1991 to 2.8.2000 in filing the o.a.3. we have heard mr. n.s. verma, learned counsel for the applicant and mr. a.k. bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents on the question of limitation as well as on the merits of the case and perused the documents on record.4. in m.a. 76/2001, the applicant has stated that he was aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.1988 placing him under suspension and the charge-sheet issued by the respondents dated 12.12.1990 which was served on him on 1.1.1991. according to the learned counsel for the applicant after the applicant retired from service on 31.7.1994, he came to new delhi and is a resident here. accordingly, he moved pt 88/2000 which was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ295CAT
1. the applicant, who belongs to the indian railway personnel service (irps) and has been working as chief personnel officer, northern railway in the pay grade of rs. 22400-24500/-, has not been considered for promotion/ appointment to the higher post of additional member (staff) [am (s)] in the pay grade of rs. 24050-26000/-. the post of am (s) fell vacant on 31.1.2002 when shri a.s. gupta, the incumbent of the post and belonging to the irps, retired on reaching the age of superannuation.2. the respondents passed a resolution on 11.10.2000 (a-1) providing, inter alia, as follows: "(vi) post of additional member (staff) is normally to be filled up by a senior and suitable officer of indian railway personnel service (irpc). however, since indian railway personnel service is a new service, in case a suitable irps officer of appropriate seniority is not available, the post may be filled up on deputation by a senior and suitable officer belonging to any other group 'a' service (except irms & rpf) working in grade rs. 22400-24500." the application of the aforesaid rule has resulted in the non-consideration of the applicant's case for promotion/appointment to the post of am (s). this precisely is the grievance raised in the present oa.3. we have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and have perused the material placed on record. copies of officer memorandum dated 30.6.1999, executive director estt. railway board's letter dated 7.7.1998 and the minutes of the railway .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ34CAT
..... during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has taken the following main grounds in support of the relief sought for by the applicant: (a) order of da has been passedin mechanical manner without application of mind; (b) da ought to have examined the definition of sexual harassment as per rule 2 of ais (prevention of sexual harassment) ..... the learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the applicant has not availed of the facility of submitting a memorial to the president as envisaged under rule 25 of the ais (d&a) rules, 1969 and in terms of the provisions of a.t. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(2)SLJ185CAT
1. challenge by shri y.s. jafa, the applicant in this o.a., is directed against ministry of home affair order no. 16013/27/93-ips-ii dated 23/24.1.2001 where under he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect, in terms of article 311(2) (c) of the constitution of india, without holding any inquiry.2. mr. g.d. gupta, sr. advocate along with mr. v.k. rao for m/s sikri and co. represented the applicant while mr. k.k. sood, additional solicitor general along with mr. a.k. bhardwaj and mr. neeraj jain appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2 -- union of india -- mr. nitin tambwekar learned counsel was present on behalf of respondent no. 3 -- state of maharashtra. written submissions were also filed by both the applicant and the respondents.3. the applicant, a directly recruited officer of indian police service (ips) of 1967 batch of maharashtra cadre had successively held a number of important and sensitive assignments like, superintendent of police, maharashtra; joint assistant director, intelligence bureau (ib), new delhi; assistant director, ib srinagar and new delhi; deputy commissioner of police, special branch, delhi police; deputy inspector general, border security force, srinagar and gurdaspur (punjab); deputy director, bsf (hqrs,). new delhi; ig, bsf kashmir frontier, srinagar and new delhi; director of prosecution, govt. of maharashtra, bombay; chief security and vigilance officer, maharashtra state road transport corporation, bombay (msrtc); inspector general, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(3)SLJ372CAT
1. the applicant has impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 13.1.2000 by which the penalty of reduction by one stage in the same scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect was imposed on him. he has also impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 19.12.2001 by which a show cause notice was issued for enhancement of the penalty and the order dated 26.12.2002 by which he has been removed from service w.e.f. 31.12.2002.2. the o.a. was originally filed by the applicant on 21.1.2001 and later amended o.a. was filed on 11.2.2003.3. the brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant while working as chief personnel officer (cpo) was issued a memo of chargesheet for major penalty dated 16.12.1996. the statement of articles of charge framed against the applicant reads as follows: (i) he misbehaved and indulged in loose, lewd and suggestive talks with his secretary, smt. kuljit kaur, on several occasions on one pretext or the other with a view to sexually harass and seduce her. on one occasion he even propositioned her and suggested sexual relations which were spurned by her. (ii) he deliberately created such privy situations by detaining her in office late into the night after closing hours, sometimes as late as 22:30 hrs. at night despite her protestations, under threat of d&ar action for deserting her duty. (iii) he further created such privy situations by calling her to office on saturday and other gazetted holidays and detained her in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ1CAT
..... as a comprehensive and exhaustive enumeration of various objects or activities which would attract rule 6 of the ccs (conduct) rules, 1964, is not practicable and as the apprehension of the staff side was mainly in regard to the possibility of arbitrary action at lower levels, it has been decided that action for alleged violation of rule 6 of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964, can be taken by a disciplinary authority only when an authority not below the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(1)SLJ280CAT
1. applicant impugns respondents' orders dated 26.7.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service as well as order dated 29.10.2001, issued by the appellate authority, upholding the punishment.2. on disclosure by one sh. g.r. baru, assistant regional director, employees state insurance corporation (esic) was caught in a trap by the cbi, accepting illegal gratification, on which the applicant was proceeded against in a major penalty proceedings under ccs (cca) rules, 1965 on the following articles of charge: that shri g.c. jatav, while posted and functioning as regional director in employees state insurance corporation (esic), then in regional office, chandigarh during 1996 failed to discharge his duties honestly and exhibited lark of integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he directed shri g.r. baru, asstt. regional director, esic, regional office, chandigarh to demand a bribe of rs. 5,0007-from shri jasbir singh, consultant of m/s mander forging pvt. ltd., mohali for showing favour of not prosecuting the managing director of the said company in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 8.1.96 for having contravened the provisions of esic act. consequent to this direction of shri g.c. jatav, a bribe amount of rs. 3,000/- was later on demanded and accepted by shri g.r. baru from shri jasbir singh on 4.4.96 staling that the bribe money is to be shared by him with sh. g.c. jatav, regional director and, thereby, sh. g.c. jatav, committed gross committed gross .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(1)SLJ223CAT
1. applicant an ex-photographic officer in affpd was proceeded against for a major penalty on the following articles of charge : shri t.l. verma, photographic officer in affpd, has entered into another marriage while his first wife is living. by his above act, shri t.l. verma has violated rule 21(2) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964 and also acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant and thereby vilated rule 3 (i)(iii) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964. shri t.l. verma, photographic officer in affpd, submitted false date of birth certificate and false experience certificates with a view to secure employment to the post of assistant information officer in directorate of information & publicity, delhi administration, delhi in feb. 96. by his above act, shri t.l. verma has failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby violated rule 3(i)(i) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964. shri t.l. verma, photographic officer in affpd, did not intimate to the administration the fact of a criminal case under sections 420/468/371 ipc having been registered against him by directorate of information and publicity, delhi administration delhi on 7 may, 96. by his above act of suppressing the material information, shri t.l. verma has exhibited conduct which is unbecoming of a government servant and thereby violated rule (3)(i)(iii) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964." 2. the inquiry officer (i.o.) has held applicant guilty of the charge.on representation disciplinary authority imposed a punishment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ300CAT
..... . the high court felt persuaded to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly on the ground on non-compliance of principle of natural justice inasmuch as no intimation was given to, no explanation called for from the writ petitioner before downgrading the "excellent" or "outstanding" entries to "satisfactory" or "good" ..... . accordingly this decision of the high court is mainly based on an influence of rule 9 where fall in standard are to be communicated.accordingly, the aforesaid does not lay down a general proposition of law and from the reading of the entire order the ratio decidendi discernible cannot be ..... . the main ground on which he challenged the downgraded entries was that the reviewing officer and/or accepting officer had not stated any reason/ justification for downgrading the entries given by the reporting officer which were .....
Tag this Judgment!