Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
..... following cases:- (i). board of trustees of the port of bombay vs. dilipkumar raghavendranath nadkrani and ors. [(1983) 1 scc 124] (ii).indrani bai vs. union of india [1994 scc suppl (2) 256 (iii). tilak chand magatram obhan vs. kamala prasad shukla and ors. [1995 supp(1) scc 21] (iv). kuldeep singh vs. the commissioner of ..... 8.2012 is nowhere in challenge and has not even been appended to this ra. there is no order in the instant review application restraining the respondents from acting in any manner against the applicant. to the contrary, there is permission from the tribunal granted to the respondents to proceed against the applicant from the stage ..... meantime, the respondents had proceeded to pass another order dated 17.8.2012 of compulsory retirement against him, when the matter was pending consideration before the tribunal. this act on the part of the respondents is contumacious of the tribunal and, therefore they deserve to be proceeded with. 6. on the other hand, the learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!