Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3116/2010, which was decided on 20.09.2010 at the admission stage with liberty given to the applicant to file representation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order claiming his seniority over the juniors and giving specific grounds on which he should be considered by the Respondents for re-engagement as casual labourer, absorption and regularization in appropriate post with the Respondents. Respondents were also directed to consider the said representation of the Applicant alongwith the copy of that OA as a supplementary representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid terms respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-27-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J): 1. Applicant has sought direction to the respondents to appoint him for the post of Constable (Executive) Male Delhi Police Recruitment, 2009 along with all benefits and allowances with effect from 17.8.2011, i.e., the date of termination. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as Constable on 5.7.2010. He continued to perform his duties but show cause notice dated 12.1.2011 was issued to him (page 15) by alleging that at the time of filling the application form applicant did not mention details of the criminal proceedings in column No.15 (a) to (e) rather mentioned ‘No’ against each column whereas the police verification report received in Recruitment Cell, Delhi Police from SP/Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) revealed that a case FIR No. 31/2000 under Section 447/435 IPC, PS Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, was registered against him. He had thus suppressed his criminal involvement in the application as well as in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2012
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 Delhi
Decided on : May-10-2012
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 Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-2012
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 Delhi
Decided on : Aug-06-2012
ORDER Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 11.5.2011 whereby his candidature for the post of Constable in Delhi Police has been cancelled (page 16). 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the year 2009. After he cleared all the tests/examination, he was provisionally selected to the said post, subject to verification of character and antecedents etc. Applicant was acquitted in FIR No. 147/2003. As far as FIR No. 200/2004 is concerned, his name was not even included as an accused yet he was issued a show cause notice on the ground that he has no regard for woman and had indulged in a heinous offence. The allegations show that applicant is aggressive in nature, therefore, he should explain why his candidature should not be cancelled. Applicant immediately gave reply to the said show cause notice by placing on record the judgment dated 25.11.2005 whereby he had ...
Tag this Judgment!