Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)(2)SLJ30CAT
1. The applicant, Shri Narayan Ch. Das has filed this OA challenging the charge sheet dated 29.1.90 (Annexure A/1), the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/31.10.02 (Annexure A/12) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.7.03 (Annexure A/15).2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant was a Rest-Giver Assistant Station Master to the regular Station Master Shri L.N. Majhi at Quarry-Siding Railway Station. Shri S.R. Das was another such Rest-Giver Station Master. The applicant has alleged that T-39 Register indicated receipt of two Box Wagons of Steel Plates by Shri Majhi in February and March, 1987. These were for ultimate delivery to M/s Bhagawati Iron & Steel Hardware Depot a Bhubaneswar. Their Agent Sambhu Kedia took delivery of major part of the Steel Plates by gas cutting in presence of Shri Majhi as witnessed by Shri Kalipada Dey a prosecution witness. Supplier did not get cost of the materials and reported the matter to CBI, Rourkela. Their Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ294CAT
1. Shri Gobinda Prasad Mula, has assailed the order dated 31.8.2000 (Annex p. 3) by which his services came to be terminated and has prayed for its quashment.2.This case was listed for hearing on admission stage. The pleadings are complete. We have hard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the records of this case. The respondents were directed to make available the records relating to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the learned Counsel for the respondents has expressed his inability to produce the same by stating that there was some mistake from his side, while the order dated 10.12.2003 was passed.3. The case of the applicant as may be succinctly put in, is that the applicant was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Assistant Manager on 1.4.93 in the Unit Run Canteen (for brevity URC) in the office of 22 Wing Air Force Station, Silchar, Assam, Subsequently he was appointed to the post of Manager, with effect from 1.9.93 while holding the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)(2)SLJ332CAT
1. Since both the O.As. have been filed by the same applicant and as the relief claimed are inter-related, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. However, for reasons of convenience, we shall deal with O.A. 644/02 in this order.2. Mr. P.K. Guha, applicant, presently working as Deputy Director General, All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta, under the M/o Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, has filed O.A.644/02 assailing the memorandum of charge No. C 13011/12/98-Vig. Dated 13.6.05 being mala fide and harassing in nature. He has also filed O.A.264/06 being aggrieved that he has not been given appointment to the post of Director, Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta despite his selection by the UPSC.3. The case of the applicant is that impugned charge memo has been served on him with an ulterior motive to thwart his career progression and for his appointment to the post of Director, Central Drug Laboratory (CDL for short) at Calcutta, to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
1. In this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the question to be decided is whether the Notification Annexure 'B' dated 23.5.2001, amended vide order dated 10.7.2001 appointing Shri Dinesh Chandra Vajpai (respondent No. 6) to the post of Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police (for short DG&IGP), is bad and illegal and is liable to be quashed.2. We shall first state the facts on which there is no dispute between the parties. They are as follows: (i) Applicant, Shri Manas Kumar Chakraborty and respondent No. 6, Shri Dinesh Chandra Vajpai are IFS of 1966 batch and in the merit list the name of the applicant had appeared at Sl. No. 2 and that of the respondent No. 6 at Sl. No. 6. (ii) There are four posts of Director General of Police (DGP) in the State of West Bengal, which are in the Grade and Scale of Rs.24050-650-26000/-. They are: (iii) On 28.2.2001 the following officers were working in the Grade and Scale of DGP : Out of them Shri D. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ191CAT
1. The applicant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He retired from service from 1.9.95 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal issued memorandum dated 29.10.96 communicating the applicant that the Governor had proposed to hold an inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 against him. In paragraph No. 2 of the said memo it was further communicated that sanction of the Central Government under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 6(i) of All India Service (DCRB) Rules, 1958 had been obtained. On receipt of the said memorandum the applicant submitted his representation on 6.12.96 to the Chief Secretary stating the Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 was not applicable to him as he had already retired from the service.2. The case for the applicant is that the provision of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
1. Shri D.R. Jagiya, Technical Asstt. Song & Drama in Min. of Information and Broadcasting has filed this O.A. against issue of chargesheet and disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and prayed for quashing the same.2. The fact of the case in brief is that the chargesheet dated 26.3.1998 (Annexure-A/5) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against the applicant by Dy. Director (Admn.) the respondent No.3. To enquire into the charges Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 15.6.98 (Annexure-A/3) by the Director, the respondent No. 2. By another order dated 15.6.98 (Annexure-A/4) the respondent No. 2 appointed Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer vide notice dated 11.9.98 (Annexure-A/2) fixed the first date of hearing on 9.10.98. The applicant represented against the appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer by respondent No. 2 vide his representation dated 22.9.98 (Annexure-A/1). The applicant challenged the authority o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)(2)SLJ69CAT
"(a) to direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned: (iv) order of dismissal from service dated 22.11.2000 including the recommendation dated 13.10.2000 of the UPSC; (b) to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to discharge his due duties and functions attached to the post as usual as before till he attains the age of superannuation; (c) to direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the points at issue" 2. The relevant facts. The applicant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was of 1976 batch and belonged to West Bengal cadre. It is averred that the applicant worked in various capacities including Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) successfully, yet he was superseded in the matter of promotion in April, 1994 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.4.94. A charge-sheet dated 2.6.94, containing five charges, was served on him. The charges r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ119CAT
1. Sri Madan Mohan Bar, Ex-Driver-A of Kharagpur Division of S.E. Rly, has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: (a) An order directing and quashing the disciplinary proceedings started by the Disciplinary Authority as it is totally in violation of the Statutory Rules and of the principles of natural justice; (b) An order quashing the incomplete enquiry report of the biased Enquiry Officer who has concluded the enquiry in violation of the statutory rules as stated in Paragraph 4 and in violation of the principles of natural justice and of the principles of the reasonable opportunities; (c) An order quashing the removal order of the Disciplinary Authority passed on the basis of incomplete enquiry report of the biased Enquiry Officer when his letter/representation dated 7.9.95 was pending before the authority and when his letter dated 4.10.95 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority was pending before him for his consideration which was written by him in reply to this letter dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ48CAT
1. Shri Arup Kr. Biswas, Radiographer, Metal and Steel Factory, lchhapore, has filed this O.A. assailing the impugned order of penalty dt. 10.9.99 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order dt. 16.8.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The applicant has challenged the said impugned orders on the ground that the departmental enquiry was held in complete violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer failed to supply him copies of the statement of the witnesses who were likely to be examined in course of the proposed enquiry and those who had appeared at the preliminary enquiry before the Board of Enquiry; secondly, that the applicant was not supplied with the report of the preliminary enquiry although the Disciplinary Authority heavily relied upon the said preliminary enquiry report in dissenting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer; thirdly, that the Disciplinary A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
1. Through this application under Section 19 of the A.T Act, the applicants who are 12 in number have called in question the transfer order dated 1.05.2001 and the release order 22.6.2001 in so far as they relate to them. A declaration that the O.M dated 30.9.2001 is ultra vires of Arts. 309 and 14 of the Constitution of India, has also been sough.2. The facts of the case are these. The applicants were initially appointed as junior Telecom Officer (in short JTO) in the year of 1974.They were promoted to the post of TES-B/S.D. Engineer in the years 1994 to 2000. It is stated that prior to the formation of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (in short BSNL) in September 2000 the applicants were discharging duties and function as employees of the DOT being Government of India employees within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and their status as the employees of the Govt. of India continues even after formation of the BSNL. It is further stated that no definite notificati...
Tag this Judgment!