Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-27-2013
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicant in this Original Application was a candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the recruitment held in the year 2011 . In this Original Application, he has challenged the impugned Annexure-B notice dated 22.11.2012 calling upon him why his candidature for the said post should not be cancelled. He has also challenged the impugned Annexure-A order dated 11.12.2012 cancelling his candidature. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- In response to Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2012, you had submitted your reply dated 07.12.2012 stating therein the plea(s) that the above said case was registered against you as the complainant had personal grudges and taken personal vendetta during the Panchayat Election (Gram Pardhan) and this is due to one of the jealousy in framing up the case due to pursue of your higher qualification in BCA only being student from your village. You were neither arrested by the Police nor t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-23-2013
G George Paracken, Member (J) In this Case the Applicant was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS for short) in the office of the Respondents, namely, the General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts Office, Delhi after having being sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 13.12.2011. Among the terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment, one of them was as under:- the appointment is purely on a temporary basis and will be governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. The appointment can be terminated at any time under the said CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reasons. If you want to wish to resign the employment you will give notice in writing for a period of not less than one month of your intension of resign. 2. After having accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions in the said offer of appointment, the Applicant was taken on the strength of the Respondents as MTS with effect from 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-13-2013
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
Decided on : Feb-13-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The applicant applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination in the year 2011 in pursuance of the Notification dated 19.03.2011 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. He applied under Un-reserved category, and given his first preference to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) apart from other preferences to other posts. He was allotted with Roll No.2201021148, and as per the said Notification, Examination is to be conducted on 19.06.2011 and 26.06.2011. 2. As per the Scheme of the Notification, candidates have to make a single application form for various posts. The examination will comprise of two Tiers - Written Objective Type examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test, wherever applicable. As per the Scheme of the examination, as notified, posts have been placed in two groups, interalia, based on their Grade Pay. Preference of posts, Group- wise is to be indicated in the application. Further detailed option for post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jul-12-2013
The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial dated 13.08.2011. It appears that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint against this order before the Chief of Army Staff under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. The statutory complaint has been disposed of by the Army Chief of Staff rejecting the petition. However, the sentence of dismissal has been converted into an order of discharge. Said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent today. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition certain facts need to be noted herein. 2. The petitioner was enrolled on 27.07.2002 as Sepoy in 64 Assault Engineer regiment, Indian Army and was posted at different places. He was attached to head quarter central command, Lucknow as draftsman. It appears that Patna Police got information that Mr. Sudhanshu Sudhakar , who had been dismissed from the Army, was proceeding to Nepal with secret info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 403/1997 Judgment delivered on:12. 07.2013 RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP with Inspector Satyavirjaaula, P.S. Ashok Vihar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR % JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.1997 and order on sentence dated 24.10.1997 thereby convicting the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month each under Sections 323/34 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are that the accused persons and the complainant side are resident of the Village Bak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h September, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 501/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State. versus LALITA ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 13958/2013 (delay) 1. This application has been filed by the State seeking condonation of 94 days delay in filing the present petition for leave to appeal.2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, present application is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 501/2013 4. By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), (North-West) Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No.12/2009 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge...
Tag this Judgment!