Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: railways act 1989 chapter 5 opening of railways Court: central administrative tribunal cat lucknow Page 1 of about 2 results (0.085 seconds)

Dr. Raja Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow

..... guidelines were issued by the government of india, ministry of home affairs as far back as on 22.11.1964 (swamy's compilation of ccs (cca) rules. please see chapter-3 suspension-general instructions). in our considered view, therefore, while no specific guidelines seem to have been issued for in the matter of placing under suspension of members of ..... truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a member of the service, it may appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the public servants (inquiries) act 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. (5)the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the member of ..... to the applicant as what we are dealing with here is the statutory provision under the a.t. act and not the discretion vested with the high court under the writ jurisdiction.s.s. rathore v. state of m.p. (reported in (1989) 4 scc page 582) while discussing as to when cause of action arises it was held that .....

Dr. R. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow

Reported in : (2004)(3)SLJ211CAT

..... mark for sr. administrative grade and higher administrative grade shall be very good. this circular letter of 3rd june, 2002 supersedes earlier instructions of the railway board dated 26th september, 1989: this circular letter would therefore be relevant for the dpcs held after 3rd june, 2002. in so far as the applicant is concerned, this ..... are reproduced below: "the principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in the confidential report cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned".20. the above principle was relied upon by the apex court in the subsequent ..... shukla v. state of u.p. and ors., 1999(3) uplbec 2399 observed as under: "an uncommunicated adverse remark cannot as a general rule be acted upon by the employer to the prejudice of the employee. the rules and administrative instructions generally put an obligation on the authorities to communicate, the adverse remarks .....