Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: nepali Sorted by: old Court: central administrative tribunal cat delhi Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.095 seconds)

Mar 18 2008 (TRI)

Const. Satish Kumar S/O Nepal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-18-2008

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!

Apr 02 2008 (TRI)

Bharat Singh S.i. (Exe) S/O Late Vs. Commissioner of Police, Joint

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-02-2008

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!

Jul 29 2008 (TRI)

Shri K.L. Ahuja (Retd. Technical Vs. Director General, Council for

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Jul-29-2008

1. In this OA applicant has challenged recovery of penal rent from his gratuity for overstaying in the quarter unauthorisedly on the ground that without following the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no recovery could have been made.2. He has further sought 18% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was allotted Quarter No. 9C/1, NPL Colony, New Delhi while working as Technical Officer 'C'. He retired on 31.1.2001 and was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.5.2001. As his wife was very sick, he sought further extension vide letters dated 24.5.2001, 4.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 but no reply was given. They asked him to vacate and filed OA No. 3046/2002 seeking direction to the applicant herein to vacate the premises and for recovery of dues. The said OA was dismissed on 21.10.2003 (page 37) for want of jurisdiction.4. Grievance of applicant is that respondents have deducted pe...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2008 (TRI)

Shri Ravi Kumar S/O Shri Bhola Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-23-2008

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 18.10.2002 (page 21) whereby applicant was compulsorily retired from service and order dated 30.11.2006 whereby his appeal was rejected. He has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as a labourer w.e.f. 11.01.1990. On 01.03.2001 he was served with a show cause notice (page 27) calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he has remained absent from duty without prior permission w.e.f. 4.12.2000 till date.3. Applicant replied he was sick due to psychological problems for which he is taking treatment from RML shall resume duty as soon as declared fit (page 28). He joined the duties yet memorandum dated 29.11.2001 was served on him on three charges: That the said Shri Ravi Kumar while functioning as Lab in Yard Group of CVD Delhi Cantt during the period from Dec 2000 to Mar 2001 rema...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //