Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ191CAT
1. Shri B.B. Paul, formerly PGT (Mathematics) of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dhanbad, has filed this original application being aggrieved by the order of termination of service passed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Article 81(b) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas (hereinafter called Code for 'K.V.') which was communicated to him by order dated 2/3.5.2002 (Annexure 4). He has approached this Tribunal praying for quashing the said impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority ('D.A.' for short) and also the appellate order dated 15.1.2003 (Annexure 6). He has also prayed for issue of a direction for his reinstatement of the applicant in service with all consequential service benefits.2. The applicant has assailed the order of termination under Article 81(b) of the Code for K.V being shockingly disproportionate to the alleged offence and also on the ground that the order was a perverse one being based on no evidence and also on the ground that he was denied the benefit of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ28CAT
1. Applicant named Gopinath Tripathy, a retired Telecom employee was charge-sheeted on 24.11.1993 under Rule-9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Ultimately, he faced with an order of punishment (under Annexure-1, dated 23.4.1996) by which 25% of his monthly pension have been asked to be withheld for a period of five years. As regards the gratuity amount, it has been ordered that the release of the same can be considered only after conclusion of the another disciplinary proceedings instituted vide Order No. 8/40/94-Vig.II(i) dated 13.07.1994 and Memorandum No.8/40/94-Vig.II(ii) dated 13.7.1994. Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the applicant has filed this Original Application u/s.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with prayers (i) to quash the impugned order of punishment that was passed under Annexure-1 dated 23.4.1996 and (ii) to direct the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ161CAT
1. Applicant (having been selected, through the Union Public Service Commission, in the year 1967) joined the Indian Forest Service (beings allotted to the Orissa cadre) on 1.7.1968. During his said services he was posted as Managing Director of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited with effect from 24.10.1996 where he continued upto 24.8.1999 and, finally, superannuated from service (on reaching the age of retirement) on 31.8.2001. Two years thereafter, a memorandum of charges (under Annexure-1 dated 23.12.2003) was served on the applicant (by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar) under forwarding letter dated 31.12.2003; alleging commission of irregularities during the period from 24.10.1996 to 24.8.1999. Being aggrieved by the said action/inaction of the respondents, the applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a prayer to set-aside the disciplinary proceedings that ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ219CAT
1. Applicant (Shri A.K. Das), an officer of Orissa Administrative Service (Selection Grade) (in short 'OAS (SC) has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, assailing the recommendations of the Selections Committee, which met on 13.5.2003 in terms of the I.A.S (Appointment By Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short Regulations, 1955) and recommended a list of officers of Orissa State Civil Services for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (in short I.A.S) Cadre of Orissa for the year 2002 by ignoring the case of the applicant. He has, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs : "...to quash the proceedings and recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 13.5.2003;...to quash Annexure-10 for the ends of justice; and to direct the respondents (1 to 3) to have fresh/review meetings of the Selection Committee taking the full service particulars of the applicant and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in accordance to Rules and procedure and recommend his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : 98(2004)CLT33
1. Shri Debendra Kumar Mohanty has filed this Original Application, being aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No. 18 rejecting his representation for granting him promotion to Grade III to Grade IV of the cadre of TOA(G), He is also aggrieved that he has been harassed by the Respondent-Department by invoking the provisions of Rule 38 of the P & T Manual, Volume IV and compelling him to work in a non-supervisory post whereas his junior Respondent No. 10, Shri Jogendra Das has been ordered to hold a supervisory post. He has, therefore, sought a direction to be issued by this Tribunal to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to fix his seniority below Shri Bhubaneswar Mohanty and above Shri N.K.Nandi (Respondent No. 4) and to consider his case for promotion to TOA(G) Grade IV from the date Respondent No. 4 got promotion to that grade.2. The applicant has been agitating for a long time his seniority position as determined and his eligibility for promotion to Grade IV.He had challenged his se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : 98(2004)CLT37
1. Niranjan Dalai (applicant) has tiled this Original Application being aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2001 (Annexure 6) passed by Respondent No. 3, terminating his officiating arrangement as Telephone Supervisor at Rourkela. He has, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order under Annexures 6 and 7 dated 14.3.2001 and 19.3.2001 respectively by virtue of which, he has been reverted and posted as Sr.TOA (P) in the Office of SDOP (II), City Area, Rourkela.2. The case of the applicant is that soon after the introduction of one Time Bound Promotion Scheme (in short OTBP) he was appointed as Supervisor vide Respondents' letter dated 16.10.1994 (Annexure 1) and for discharging such duty he was being paid Rs. 35/- as special allowance. It is his grievance that the grade of Sr. Telephone Operator having been restructured as Telephone Supervisors, in 1984, the Respondents had called for to volunteer for carrying out purely the supervisory duty and as he had volunteered for the same, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)(3)SLJ6CAT
1. Applicant (Santosh Kumar Mishra) is a Member of 1983 batch of Indian Administrative Service. In this original application Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, he has challenged the order (of his suspension from services) dated 4th May, 2002 passed under Annexure-5, by branding the same being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and outcome mala fides. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to allow him to maintain silence in the disciplinary proceedings on the face of the criminal cases initiated against him on self-same allegations.2. The short facts of this case are that the applicant was posted as the Collector of Gajapati District of Orissa during the year 1992 and continued there till August, 1994. During the incumbency of the applicant as Collector of Gajapati District, some development works were undertaken/executed by the Project Administrator of Integrated Tribal Development Agency and that the successor Collector of said Gajapati District alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)(3)SLJ154CAT
1. Shri K.L. Sharma, presently Superintending Engineer (MES) has filed this original application, challenging initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondents by letter dated 26.4.1996 under Annexure 3. He has inter alia sought for the following reliefs from the Tribunal: (a) To quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in Annexures 1 and 3; and (b) To quash the order of the Disciplinary Authority under Annexures 16 and 17.The applicant had also prayed for interim relief seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 3. That prayer, however, was not pressed for order and hence no interim order was issued.2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows. The applicant had served as G.E., E/M, Chakeri. His Disciplinary Authority (Ministry of Defence) by their letter dated 26.4.1996 issued a show cause notice to him indicating their intention of holding an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : 96(2003)CLT1
1. This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Samita Taudu, wherein this Tribunal is to adjudicate/decide as to whether the order of cancellation of his appointment as Chowkidar (under Annexure-4 dated 9th January, 1991) in the Office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Berhampur) is legal, valid, and justified on the face of the fact as enumerated by the Applicant in his Original Application.2. For effective adjudication of this matter, a few fact of the case is necessary to be referred to. The fact remains that the Applicant was engaged on 4.4.1985 as a contingent paid staff in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ganjam. While discharging his duties as such, intermittently, a Criminal Case was instituted against him (under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) and he was taken to custody on 31.9.1987. Ultimately, on 4.4.1989, the Learned Additfonal Sessions Judge (Ganjam ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Reported in : 96(2003)CLT4
1. In this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) The previous service of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and accounted for, towards pension; (ii) The Applicant may be allowed to join his duty forthwith since he is entitled to work upto 60 years or on the alternative his pension papers may be corrected." 2. It is the case of the Applicant that even though he had been in the Railways, on casual basis, from the year 1958 and Annexure-1 to the O.A. shows that he had been working in the Railways as a substitute/casual labourer, in the superannuation order dated 29.7.1997 it has been mentioned by the Respondents that he had worked only from 24.1.1990 to 31.8.1997; which fact he had also brought to the notice of his authorities/Respondents through representation but did not yield any fruitful result. It is alleged that even though his date of birth is 25.7.1942, the same has been wrongly...
Tag this Judgment!