Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ172CAT
1. The applicant in this O. A. is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-Ill), Kochi. He has challenged the following Office Memoranda: (a) Annexure A-4 Memorandum dated 21.5.02 issued by order and in the name of the President by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, New Delhi stating that the President was proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges levelled against him were the following: Article-I: That the said Shri S.K. Mitra, while working as DCIT, Central Range-7, Bombay, failed to effectively monitor the search case of Shri T.S. Makkar for the A.Y. 1990-91 and ensure that assessment in this case was properly framed by this ACIT, Shri K.R. Lakshminarayanan. Considering that a perusal of the relevant. assessment records brings out lapses both the investigation of facts and the manner of completing the assessment, there was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Hon'ble Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Judicial Member For certain alleged misconducts in preferring travel claims pertaining to the period of 1989-90 and in preferring an office note in connection with purchase of a photo-maker machine, charge memo was issued to the applicant in 2001 and the applicant had denied the charges. The Disciplinary Authority (Administrator, U.T. of Lakshadweep Islands) which initiated the proceedings continued to act in that capacity till the inquiry report was submitted in August 2002 (whereby all the charges stood proved) and thereafter, by an order passed in April 2006 empowering the Secretary, Information Publicity and Tourism, U.T. of Lakshadweep, the said authority imposed a penalty upon the applicant on the basis of the inquiry report. The earlier disciplinary authority (i.e. the Administrator) functioned as an appellate authority which dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant. Meanwhile the applicant approached the Tribunal in OA No. 373/2006 which was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ298CAT
(a) Whether a Government servant, who has crossed the age of superannuation, could be visited with the penalty of dismissal as a culmination of disciplinary proceedings. (b) Whether the jural relationship of master and servant survives even after the age of superannuation? (a) The applicant, initially appointed in 1958 as T II-3 (Land Surveyor and Head Draughtsman) in the office of respondent No. 4, was granted two years leave in November, 1975 to visit Sultanate of Oman. On the expiry of the sanctioned leave, for his request for extension of leave, there was no response. (b) The applicant on 23.9.1981 was informed that his services stood terminated on the expiry of 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 25.11.1980 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules. (c) The applicant had challenged the above said order of termination before the High Court of Rajasthan and the case, having been transferred to the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal as T.A. No. 12/89 came to be allowed vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant challenges Annexure A-4 notice dated 21.4.2008 and A-5 letter dated 5.5.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent for revenue recovery of Rs. 14,74,238/- from him. 2. The applicant while working as Treasurer-I of Thiruvananthapuram General Post Office, was suspended pending enquiry w.e.f. 19.6.2007 in connection with loss of money to the tune of Rs. 14,74,238/- from the post office. The suspension was extended from time to time. A criminal case was also registered against the applicant. According to the applicant, the enquiry has not commenced and the memo of charges and statement of allegations not served on him so far. While so, he was required to appear before the 2nd respondent on 15.5.2008 for inquiry in to the issue of defalcation of government money of Rs. 14,74,238/- (A-3). But the applicant informed his inability to attend as he has to attend the Vanchiyoor Police Station as ordered by the AJM, Trivandrum on the same day. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The challenge in this case is against Annexure A-1 order dated 18.2.2009 placing the applicant under suspension and Annexure A-15 order dated 18.5.2009 extending the suspension for a further period of 180 days. 2. The applicant is a member of Indian Police Service, Kerala cadre 1977 batch. While he was working as Inspector General of Police, on 12.10.2001 he was appointed on deputation as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (SUPPLYCO for short). He was reverted back on completion of the deputation period, to the Police Service on 4.10.2004 and was working as Additional Inspector General of Police Armed Police Battalion, Kerala State. While so, he was served with an order of suspension dated 18.2.2009 (A1). The suspension was ordered on the ground that the CBI has reported that there were certain irregularities in the purchase of medicines for Maveli Medical stores during the tenure of applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ110CAT
1. applicant while working as Extra Depart-mental Delivery Agent, Parakkadavu under Paravur Postal Sub Division was put off duty w.e.f.21.2.97 FN under Rule 9 of the P & T Extra Departmental (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 as per A-1 memo dated 21.2.97 of the second respondent. Subsequently A-2 memo dated 26.3.97 of the second respondent was issued to him proposing to take action against him under Rule 8 of the P & T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964.Applicant sent A-3 letter dated 7.4.97 requesting for further time to submit his Statement of defence. By A-4 memo dated 2.4.97 second respondent appointed first respondent as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. Applicant suhmitted A-5 written Statement dated 15.4.97. Preliminary Hearing of the case was held on 9.5.97. The applicant appointed a Defence Assistant. Applicant by A-7 representation dated 14.5.97 made a requestto furnish him with copies of the Inspcction Report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The M.A. No. 732/11 in O.A. No. 788/11 for condoning the delay of 52 days in filing the O.A. is allowed, as the delay was not on account of any wilful laches or negligence on the part of the applicant. 2. The applicant in this O.A. while working as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot had participated in a flash strike on 08.12.2007 by not reporting for working the nominated train without any notice. The strike paralysed the entire train net work in the Trivandrum Division and caused immense hardship to the public and heavy financial loss and the image of the Railways was tarnished. For having violated Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, he was charge sheeted. The charges were held as proved in the enquiry that followed. The Disciplinary Authority imposed on him the penalty of reduction to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot for a period of 5 years with recurring effect and loss of seniority. The penalty was modified by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicant has challenged the penalty order at Annexure A1, appellate order at Annexure A2 and revisional order at Annexure A3. The applicant was punished for participating in an illegal strike by Loco Pilots on 8.12.2007 which resulted in major dislocation of train services. 2. The main contention of the applicant is that there was absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations against him. The impugned orders proceed as if the liability is upon the charged officer to disprove the charges and on that basis the penalty is imposed. 3. When the case came up for final hearing the counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant case is identical to OA No. 3 of 2010 and OA No. 868 of 2011. The counsel for the respondents endorsed the submission about the identical character of the cases. 4. In OA No. 3 of 2010 vide order dated 29.7.2011 it was held as under:- "6. We have heard Mr.TCG Swamy, the learned counsel for applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER1. The applicant in this O.A. while working as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot was charge sheeted for not turning up to work his nominated train Number 2625, Ex-Quilon Jn., on 08.12.2007 at 12.43 hrs. causing a detention of 562 minutes and untold miseries to thousands of travelling public and leakage of revenue amounting to crores of rupees, besides tarnishing the image of the Railways. In the enquiry that was conducted, the misconduct of the applicant was held as proved. The applicant was imposed with a penalty of reduction from the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot for a period of 5 years with recurring effect and loss of seniority. In appeal, the penalty was revised to reduction to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot for a period of 3 years without recurring effect which was confirmed by the revisionary authority. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A for the following reliefs:(i) Call for the records leadin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER1. The applicant has challenged the penalty order (Annexure A-1), the appellate order (Annexure A-2) and the Revision Order (Annexure A-3) on various grounds, including inter alia that the charge leveled against the applicant vide Annenxure A-4 "was neither placed on the record of the enquiry nor proved by any process known to law and thus, the findings of the Inquiry Officer are purely perverse, pre-conceived and biased."2. In fact charge sheet on identical set of facts had been issued in respect of a number of individuals who had allegedly been responsible for detention of a particular train (No. 2625) on 08-12-2007 for 562 minutes at Quilon. and, identical order of penalty order had been passed in respect of such Loco Pilots (Goods) against whom the charge sheets were issued.3. In one such case in OA No. 3 of 2010, vide the order dated 29-07-2011, the following order has been passed:-"The applicant is working as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the Pay Band of ...
Tag this Judgment!