Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ54CAT
1. The core question involved in the present Original Application for consideration and determination is whether the Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) is obliged to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) on the request of the Government of India which has found some merits in the representation made by an Officer who could not reach the bench mark and, therefore, found ineligible for consideration to a promotional post by the earlier DPC.This controversy has come to be raised in the back-drop of the following facts.2. As a result of Combined Civil Service Examinations of the year 1980, the applicant Shri Satyendra Jeet Singh was selected and appointed as Assistant Collector in the Customs and Central Excise Group 'A' Service, and was given the label of 1981 batch. The conditions of service of the applicant are governed by the Central Excise Service Group 'A' Rules. 1987. On account of various long drawn rounds of litigation right upto the Apex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ162CAT
1. This Tribunal is faced with a vexing crucial question with regard to its jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to the service matters of various categories of Central Government Employees who have been transferred on deemed deputation with effect from 1st October, 2000 to a newly incorporated Company Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'BSNL').2. A narrative of facts giving rise to the above controversy is that Shri Phuleshwar Prasad Singh (applicant in the two O.As), who admittedly is holding the post of Senior Accounts Officer, having been promoted in the year 1997 in the cadre of Indian Post and Telegraph Accounts and Finance Service Group 'B', is a Member of All India Service. He was posted in the office of Divisional Engineer (Telephone) Darbhanga, Bihar, and was under the administrative control of Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications, Government of India.By orders dated 16.3.2001 (i.e. after his deemed deputation in BSNL) he was placed under suspensio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ322CAT
1. Applicant Shri H.R. Megh is an IAS officer of 1990 batch allocated to the State of Punjab. He is aggrieved by the Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 26.6.2006, whereby inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, was ordered against him.The charge imputed against him was that when posted as Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar in the year 1997, he accepted the petition of Sarpanch of Village Sahni, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt.Kapurthala under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1942 and allowed exchange of 7 acres of Gram Panchayat land with 4 acres of private land, putting the Panchayat to a great loss. It has been alleged in the Charge Memo that petition under Section 42 can be filed only for removal and rectification of patent mistake in the consolidation proceedings done at the time of consolidation, while there was no such mistake. Exchange of Gram Panchayat land with private land could be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A) 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:- œ8 (i). That impugned order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure A-1), order dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure A-3) be quashed and set aside and applicant be ordered to be reinstated in service.? 2. Averment has been made in the Original Application that the applicant joined Chandigarh Police Department on 19.05.1988 as Constable and worked as such upto 14.03.2012. The family of the applicant includes his wife and two daughters and a son who are studying in B.Tech, 10+1 and 10th respectively. The applicant has been allotted House No.66/T, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh from Police Pool Houses. FIR No.62 dated 12.03.2012 under Sections 307, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code was registered on the statement of one Inspector Satpal, of PCR Van alleging that on 12.03.2012 Constable Baleer Singh of PCR ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2004)(2)SLJ311CAT
1. The controversy in this O.A. centres round the appointment of Shri Diwakar Prasad, respondent No. 2, a senior member of Indian Police Service of Himachal Pradesh Cadre (HP-68), as Additional Director in the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, New Delhi, on deputation basis, which post he joined on 6th of March, 2003 pursuant to the Fax message dated 4th March, 2003 (Annexure A-9), sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, and addressed to the Chief Secretary, H.P. Circle, with a copy for information to the Director General Police, Himachal Pradesh. The Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh sent a Fax message dated 10th March, 2003 (Annexure A-10) addressed to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, with a copy to the Home Secretary, Government of India and Director Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi. Since this fax message reflects the genesis of the controversy and the stand taken by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following relief:- “The impugned orders dated 7.10.2008 (A-16) as also the order dated 6.3.2009 (A-18), imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant, may kindly be set aside.” 2. The facts of the case as projected by the applicant are that while working as Junior Assistant in the office of Respondent no. 3, he was directed to join the office of Secretary Transport Authority (for short STA), U.T. Chandigarh and was relieved vide order dated 26.7.2005. After joining the office of STA, he was assigned the duties of Care Taker/scanning documents of private service vehicles. He was involved in a trap case and an FIR no. 6, dated 19.6.2007 u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him. He was convicted/sentenced by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.8.2008. Against this judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) 1. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts of the case and points of law involved in these Original Applications are common and as such these have been taken up for disposal by a common order. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from O.A.No. 296-PB-2012 (Mrs. Amrita Vs. Union of India and Others). 2. A charge-sheet dated 3.12.2008 under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, came to be issued to the applicant, with allegations that while working as Postal Assistant, SBSO, Jalandhar City HO, during 2001 to 12.5.2007, she had failed to get verified the heavy withdrawals of Padhiana Single Handed SO, through SDI. She also failed to compare balance written in SB-7 with the balance available in SBSO record and also did not compare the signature of depositor on withdrawal form with SB-3 held in SBSO, which facilitated Sh. Chander Parkash Khurana, the then SPM Padhiana, SO making fraudulent withdrawals from various SB accounts on different ...
Tag this Judgment!