Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The present case provides a classic example how lightly and by complete lack of application of mind, some times, the authorities entrusted with handling/dealing with enquiries against employees act, who may be visited with such punishments that may totally ruin their career.2. Bharat Singh, the applicant herein, faced a regular departmental enquiry on the following charge, which came to be framed by the enquiry officer after recording statements of HC Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Const.Dalip (PW-2), HC Ramanand (PW-3), SI Yad Ram (PW-4), Inspr. Ombir Singh (PW-5), Inspr. Jagdish Pandey (PW-6), and Ramesh Kumar Chauhan (PW-7): I, H.V.S. Rathi, E.O. ACP/DE Cell, Delhi charge you SI Bharat Singh No. D-633 (PIS No. 16970165) that while you were posted at CAW Cell, South Delhi, the investigation of case FIR No. 393/03 under Section 498-A/406/420 IPC P.S. H.N.Din, New Delhi was entrusted to you. During investigation of the said case, L.O.C. of accused Darshan Kumar Sharma was got opened at Immigr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed Writ Petition No.579/2005 against the order of dismissal dated 15.10.1999. The said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal, which was registered as TA No.1223/2009. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2009 directed the Commissioner, MCD to treat the said TA as supplementary revision of applicant and dispose of the same by a reasoned order to be passed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal the respondents have again passed the order dated 07.06.2010, thereby enclosing a detailed speaking order, upholding the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15.10.1999, inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service with a modification to the extent that penalty of dismissal from service shall not be a disqualification for future employment. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged letter dated 12.3.2010 and sought a direction to the respondents to get him medically examined by an independent Medical Board at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi or at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, or in any other Govt. Hospital as per the Medical requirement of the Railways for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as ALP) and the case of the applicant may be considered for his appointment to the post of ALP on the basis of the medical report given by an independent Medical Board. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are in the year 2008 Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh had invited applications for the post of Apprentices Assistant Loco Pilot had applied for it and was declared successful and sent offer of appointment vide letter dated 25.9.2009 (page 12). Thereafter, he was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 5.11.2009. Applicant was declared unfit in A-1 category (page 13)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. The challenge in this Original Application is against the order dated 23.11.aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 03.03.2011 proposing to cancel his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-2 order dated 02.03.2011 by which his candidature has been cancelled. 2. This case was earlier heard and disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.11.2011. In fact, this O.A was allowed and the respondents were directed to give appointment to the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) on the ground that his case was squarely covered by the earlier order of a co-ordinate Bench in Dharam Veer Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (OA 164/2010) decided on 25.11.2010 having its operative part as under: 6. It is not possible to agree with the arguments of the Respondents in view of the fact that the candidature of the Applicant has not been cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicants in this joint Original Application are serving as Senior Field Assistants(M) [SFAs(M) for short] and Assistant Field Officers(M) [AFOs(M) for short] in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are aggrieved by the alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the Respondents in not giving them the Grade Pays of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as given to their counter-parts serving in the various organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat. 2. The brief background of the case is that SSB was originally under the Cabinet Secretariat. From 14.01.2001, its administrative control was transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the other similar organizations such as ARC, SSF and RAW continued to be under Cabinet Secretariat. All those organizations including SSB were having the posts of SFA and AFO and their pay scales from time to time were as under:-Details o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) MA 3625/2012: The applicant has filed the MA for condonation of delay in filing the OA No.4333/2012. He has stated in the said MA that on the permission of this Tribunal in OA No.399/2003, decided on 30.05.2003 (Annexure A12), he filed OA No.1755/2003 by challenging the Scheme of the respondents, i.e., New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS), but the said OA was dismissed on 06.05.2004 on the ground of resjudicata. He further stated that the Honble High Court of Delhi dismissed the WP(C) No.10394/2004 and 23790/2005, which was filed against the said decision of this Tribunal dated 06.05.2004, vide its Judgment dated 23.05.2011, which was also upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.25894-95 of 2011 vide its order dated 24.09.2012. 2. However, the applicant stated that, in the present OA, the applicant has challenged the constitutional validity of another Scheme of the respondents, i.e., Merit And Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) and its Circular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) : MA No.479/2011 1. Applicants have moved this MA praying to implead IASE as necessary party in the controversy. During the hearing all parties agreed that the inclusion of IASE as a party in the OA will expand the scope of the controversy and the adjudication will be delayed. Further, it was noted that the statutory bodies like UGC, AICTE and DEC have been impleaded as party respondents and have filed their reply affidavits which would suffice to adjudicate the controversy. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no necessity to implead IASE as necessary party. Hence, the MA is dismissed. MA No.2649/2011 2. Shri Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel has moved on 28.09.2011 this MA with the prayer to implead Shri Madan Mohan serving as AE, DDK, Delhi as intervenor as party respondent in the OA. As the OA has been finally heard, it may not be necessary to include fresh party as respondent which would delay the adjudication. The OA was filed in the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. As per our religious and vedantic account place of a guru (teacher) is paramount and a guru has been placed at the pedestal of Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha. The paramount task of the teacher in nation building is to impart not only learning and wisdom to the students but also make them virtuous, morally strong with a positive frame of mind. A fundamental duty enshrined upon a teacher to prove one's worth as an ideal teacher like Guru Draunacharya Guru Balmiki and Guru Rabindra Nath Tagore. What is expected from a teacher is idealism.A sin committed by a sinner can be treated but once this sin emanates from guru, it is not only depreciable but also sinnest of the sin. A Teacher with all logic and rationale has to be equated with parents till a student completes his education. The role of a father or mother to impart basic values and virtues to a student is being imparted by a guru. When a creator becomes destructor, the situation would become so complex that the ...
Tag this Judgment!