Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ132CAT
1. In this round of litigation the applicant challenges the draft seniority list of PWI Gr. II published vide letter dated 5.8.03. The draft seniority list gives a reference to earlier letter dated 24.2.03.2. The applicant was working as a PWM when he was promoted as PWI Gr.III against the rankers quota. The private respondents were directly recruited as PWI Gr. III. Their inter se seniority has been subject matter of a number of litigations. The applicant submitted a representation dated 28.8.03 against the aforesaid seniority list stating as under: The promotion were given to SI. No. 21 Shri K.N. Singh to SI. No. 24 Shri O.P. Bhardwaj for PWI Gr. II not according to list of 1994. My name should be at SI. No. 21 instead of SI. No. 26 and all benefits should be given in favour of me according to previous list.3. The official respondents in their reply have raised the preliminary objection that the OA is filed on 11.2.05 i.e., after more than one year without any application for condon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ90CAT
1. Aggrieved by the disagreement note dated 14.2.2006 issued by the Disciplinary Authority the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the quashing of the same.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant was issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 30.4.02. The applicant submitted his detailed reply dated 27.5.2002 to the charge sheet (running into 20 pages) along with his letter dated 27.5.2002. This reply amongst other indicates that when he was busy participating in the National Shooting Championship, his A.C. Shri. K.M. Ramchandran had written a confidential D.O. in April 1998 to DC (H.Qrs.) Shri. S.K. Panda to transfer him. The Commissioner after seeing his previous records including seizures affected, allowed him to complete his tenure. He has also referred to incident regarding his being asked to take over charge of Customs Office Paldi from M.M. Parekh on 22.5.98 when the successor S.B. Chauhan was to join on 25.5.98, and that he signed both the tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)(92)SLJ335CAT
1. Aggrieved by the notification dated 26.10.05 reserving 20 of 34 posts of Loco Pilot (Goods Driver Goods) Gr.II for being filled up by members of SC/ST, the applicants, who belong to general category, have preferred the present O.A. They have sought for quashing of the same. It is proposed to hold a selection for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Goods/Gr.II/Driver Goods scale Rs. 5000-8000 (RSRP). The assessed vacancies are 34, out of which 16 posts are reserved for SC and 04 posts are reserved for ST as per post based roster of reservation for the category of Loco Pilot (Goods) Gr.II scale Rs. 5000-8000 including shortfall/requirement of SCs/STs in the category of Loco Pilot (Mail) and Loco Pilot (Pass Gr.II/II and Loco Pilot (Goods) Gr.I scale Rs. 5500-9000 (RSRP).3. The grievance of the applicant is that the newly created Ahmedabad Division also includes a part of erstwhile Rajkot Division. There is no shortfall of SC/ST in the Rajkot Division as it exists today (Ann.A/3). The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ43CAT
1. The applicant while working as a Programme Executive, Doordarashan Kendra, Ahmedabad, is served with the charge sheet on dated 28.8.2004.He has approached this Tribunal challenging the charge sheet and seeking the following relief: (A) Quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 28.8.2004 at Annexure-A hereto on the ground that the respondent No. 2 herein is not vested with any authority or power under any law to decide and initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant herein. (B) Be further pleased to hold and declare that the decision of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to initiate major penalty disciplinary proceedings against the applicant herein suffers from the vices of bias, prejudice, malice and inordinate and unexplained delay. (C) Hold, declare and direct that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated in the present O.A., the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, with the issuance of the impugned charge shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ188CAT
1. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents rejecting his representation against adverse ACR for the year ending 31.03.02, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the following reliefs: (A) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the orders at Annexures-A and Al by holding it illegal, null and void, without any justification and against the settled principle of law and violative of principle of audiulterm pulterm and principle of Nemo Firut repente turpissimus and further be pleased to direct the respondents to expunge the same with all other consequential benefits including directing for holding review DPC for considering him for promotion to SAG level. (C) Any other further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to the orders of Tribunal in O.A. 1093/ 89 before the Principal Bench, which were also upheld by the Apex Court, the applicant was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ263CAT
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashing and setting aside of the penalty order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.1.2004. The applicant was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 levelling certain imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour against the applicant on dated 2/3.11.2000. He was asked to submit his representation with regard to the charges levelled against him within 10 days of the service of the charge sheet on him. He had submitted his representation on dated 7.6.2001 contending that he was not supplied with all the documents asked for by him and the charges levelled against him were not correct and did not amount to misconduct on his part. The Disciplinary Authority after considering his representation vide order dated 30.9.2003 holding that the Charge Nos. 1 & 2 were proved, imposed the penalty of withholding of the increments for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)(1)SLJ257CAT
1. The applicant who is working as Postal Assistant at Kheralu, has again approaches this Tribunal challenging the punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority (in short DA) and upheld by the Appellate Authority (in short AA). His case has a chequered history. He was served with a charge-sheet on dated 17/ 19.1.1994 leveling certain imputations of failing to forward a cash bag containing Rs. 15,000 to the Head Office and thereby causing cash loss of Rs. 15,000 to the Government. Simultaneously an F.I.R. was also lodged with the Police and a criminal case bearing No. 258 of 1994 was filed in the Magistrate Court. On his submitting the representation on the charges leveled against him, the DA vide its order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 15,000 and withholding of one increment for thirty months. After unsuccessful appeal and review application, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA/252/1997. This Tribunal vide its order dated 25.1.2002 quash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)(2)SLJ55CAT
1. The applicant J.D. Mehta in this second round of litigation (the name of Association of Railways and Post employees having been dropped vide order dated 19.2.2004), is aggrieved by the action of respondents in resorting to direct recruitment from open market in Group 'D' posts without first absorbing the ex-casual labour on live register/supplementary live register. He has sought for the following reliefs: (A) The Hon. Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned a 'on on the part of respondents to fill up the vacant posts of gangman etc., c Jup-D posts, in Rajkot Division, by direct recruitment, ignoring the directions issued by the Hon. Supreme Court and the rights of the ex-casual labourers waiting for absorption, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to fill up all the vacancies of Rajkot Division, from amongst the ex-casual labourers awaiting for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)(1)SLJ342CAT
1. The applicant, an IAS officer of 1964 batch assigned to Gujarat cadre, was serving as a Secretary to the Government of India, Deptt. of Electronics. He had opted for voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 vide his notice dated 1.7.1996 and was permitted to retire voluntarily from the Indian Administrative Service w.e.f. 1.10.96 vide notification dated 30.9.1996. In view of news item appearing in Times of India dated 4.10.1996 to the effect that he had been appointed as a Chief Executive of Star T.V., the Government of India sought his explanation vide letter dated 9.10.96 pointing out that under Rule 26 of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 a pensioner cannot accept any commercial employment before expiry of two years from the date of retirement except with the previous sanction of the Central Government and that if the news item was correct, he had violated Rule 26 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958. The applicant replied to the communica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ378CAT
1. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not extending to him retirement benefits by treating him to have retired on 1.1.96 the applicant has preferred the present O .A. He has sought for a direction to the respondents that he should be extended the benefits as if he has retired on 1.1.96.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant retired from service on 31.12.95. He had reportedly been agitating this grievance in different forum. It was finally rejected in pension adalat on 30.6.04. (i) The decision of Apex Court in S. Banerjee v. UOI. . (ii) The Full Bench decision in O.A. 459/97 and O.A. 460/97, V. Rajagopalan v. UOI. Annex.-A/11 is a decision of Banglore Bench in O.A. 694/03 which after taking note of stay granted by Mumbai High Court in writ petition filed against O.As. 469/97 and 460/97 has granted the consequential benefits as the same had not been reversed. (iii) The decision of Hyderabad Bench in O.A. 79/2000 which has followed the decision of Andra Pradesh High ...
Tag this Judgment!