Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)(2)SLJ235CAT
1. This OA has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 24.5.2005 moving the applicant from the post of Chairman, Third Maharastra Finance Commission (in short 'TMFC') and posting him as Managing Director, MAFCO. After hearing the Counsel for applicant on 1.6.2005, ad-interim relief was granted restraining the respondents to operate the impugned order and the case was listed for 15.6.2005 i.e. after a period of 14 days. In the meantime the applicant moved Misc. Petition No. 338/05 on 14.6.2005 for adding the name of Dr.D.K. Sankaran in the array of respondents and also to make certain amendments in the OA.2. On 15.6.2005 arguments were heard of the Counsel from both sides on the point of vacation or continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 1.6.2005 and the stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 24.5.2005 was continued vide order dated 17.6.2005.3. The respondents filed a Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Leena Mehendale, Member (A). 1. This OA is filed on 29th April, 2011 by the applicant seeking the following reliefs against Departmental Enquiry and punishment. a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2011 with all consequential benefits. b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to grant promotion to the Applicant to the post of Additional Commissioner of Customs and Excise w.e.f. 21.11.2001 when the Applicant's immediate Junior Shri S.C.Rohtagi was promoted with all consequential benefits. c) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the Applicant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of DCRG, Leave Encashment and Commutation of Pension w.e.f. 01.02.2005 till the date of payment of retirement benefits. 2. The charge against applicant was of being in receipt of bribe money as under : Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ201CAT
1. The applicants in the above five O. As have impugned the action of the respondents in issuing the orders dated 7.2.1996. In those orders, it has been stated that the President is satisfied that under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution in the interest of the security of State. It is not expedient to hold an inquiry in each of their cases and they were dismissed from service with immediate effect. Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the relevant facts and issues are similar in these cases and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The legal arguments submitted by Mr.G.K. Masand, learned Counsel in S.N. Thapa v. Union of India and Ors.(O.A. 385/96) have also been adopted by the learned Counsel in the other four cases. In the circumstances, for the sake of convenience, the facts and issues raised in O.A. 385/96 have been referred to and such other arguments the others have advanced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ328CAT
1. The present O. A. is filed for directing the respondents not to conduct the departmental inquiry till a decision in criminal proceedings is reached.2. The applicant is working as Travelling Ticket Examiner in the Mumbai Division of Central Railway. On 22/23.4.2003 the applicant was on duty in train No. 1093 Dn. According to the applicant a decoy check was conducted by incompetent persons in contravention of the Rules in the Vigilance Manual. As per Vigilance Inspectors version the applicant was accosted at Kasara Station on 23.04.2003 and sought to show the personal and Railway cash. The applicant refused to cooperate with the Vigilance Inspectors. The applicant with a view to avoid detection, pushed the Vigilance Inspectors and the independent witnesses and threatened the Vigilance Inspector. The chargesheet was issued to the applicant. The chargesheet mentioned that the Vigilance Department had a source of information that Travelling Ticket Examiners in train No.1093 Dn. were col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ273CAT
1. The applicant has preferred this O.A. seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him vide charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999, interdict, on the ground that same charges were subject matter of the criminal case in which the applicant has been acquitted.He has, thus, sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999, the punishment order dated 18.1.2002, the appellate order dated 19.7.2002 and the revision order dated 10.2.2004. he has also prayed for setting aside the whole enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the same are vitiated due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice.2. The facts in nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are that he entered the Postal Department as Postal Assistant on 22.2.1983. While working as Postal Assistant at Kranti Chowk Post Office, Aurangabad, the applicant was issued a major penalty charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted his reply to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ116CAT
1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the charge memo dated 11.07.2005 with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant's case is that he is a Member of the Indian Administrative Service. He had a long and distinguished service career and held various important and sensitive postings. He had joined the CIDCO as Vice Chairman and Managing Director on 26.5.2003. It is contended that respondent No. 5 took over as Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 1.1.2004. Soon after he joined as Chief Minister, Shri Ashok Sinha was appointed as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of CIDCO vide order dated 15.12.2004. It is contended that the applicant was given posting as Chairman, 3rd Maharashtra Finance Commission vide order dated 28.12.2004. The Third Maharashtra Finance Commission had not been constituted by the Governor and thus the applicant could not take over the charge as Chairman. The Third Maharashtra Finance Commission had been constituted by the Notification dated 15.1....
Tag this Judgment!