Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. In this application, the applicant has challenged the validity of the order passed by the respondents dated 30.6.1994 removing him from service and the order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal.2. The above impugned orders have been passed by the respondents after holding a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant based on the charge-sheet issued to him dated 5.12.1987. Mr. S.L. Hans, learned Counsel for the applicant, has challenged the validity of the charge-sheet on a number of grounds. One of the grounds taken by the learned Counsel is that it is not only vague but it is a second charge-sheet or rather a third charge-sheet issued to the applicant after cancelling the earlier two charge-sheets issued to him by order dated 26.11.1979 and 21.2.1983. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the article of charge as well as the statement of imputations of misconduct for both the charged memorandum are identical and there was no just...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. As all these 3 OAs involve common questions of law and fact they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In this O.A. applicant Shri Y.K. Mehta, Video Executive, Doordarshan, New Delhi impugns respondents order dated 14,6.93 Annexure-C(colly.) and dated 17.8.93 Ann-C (Colly.) whereby R-6 to 38 have been promoted, and prays for promotion w.e.f. 26.6.78 with consequential benefits. OA-53/97 3. In this O.A. applicants who belong to All India Graphic Artists Association, Doordarshan seek a direction to declare the presence/posts of Programme Executives and Transmission Executives as illegal w.e.f.the date of implementation of the new staffing pattern and seek promotion as per the Inter-Departmental Review and Rationalisation Committee Report over the promotions of R-4 to 20 with retrospective effect with consequential benefits.4. In this O.A, applicants Shri R.K. Tayal & Others also seek a direction to declare the presence/posts of Programme Executives and Transmission Execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicants are aggrieved by the letter issued by the respondents dated 14.3,1997 rejecting their request for regularisation of allotment of Government Quarter No. C-101, Hanuman Road, New Delhi, in the name of Applicant 1 on retirement of Applicant 2 from Government service.They have also challenged the eviction order dated 17.7.1997 passed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the PP Act) and the office memo dated 25.3.1996.2. The brief facts of the case are that Applicant while in service was allotted Government Quarter No. C-101, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. He retired on 31.1.1997. The first applicant who is the son of Applicant 2 is also employed in the Central Government. According to him, he has been sharing the accommodation with his father and he has not been drawing any House Rent Allowance since his appointment on 1.10.1994.They have submitted that they are not owning any house. Shri B.Krish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant challenges an order dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the applicant's request for cancellation of her posting at Doordarshan Kendra (in short DDK) Bareilly, and seeks a direction to adjust her as Programme Executive against one of the vacant posts available at DDK Delhi.2. The grounds taken by her are as follows-- other lady officers were retained at the same station after promotion there are four vacancies of Programme Executives at DDK Delhi and her case has been recommended by her immediate superior. She says that one Shri Amar Nath Amar promoted along with her has been retained at Delhi and the same consideration had not been extended to her. She has cited the latest instructions of the Ministry of Personnel dated 12th June, 1997 (Annexure A-6) under which wife and husband are to be kept at the same place unless the exigencies of service demand otherwise. It is stated that in Bareilly there are four posts of Programme Executive and the contention that her po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. This Original Application filed on 3.10.1996 challenges an advertisement dated 16.8.1996 issued by respondent No. 1 by which the post of Joint General Manager-II (is short JGM-II) is sought to be filled in by transfer on deputation. The applicant also seeks a direction to treat the services rendered by him from 23.4.1985 on the feeder post of Deputy General Manager (in short 'DGM'/Regional Manager (in short 'RM') till 9.3.1994 as a regular service in the grade of Rs. 3700-5000; and this should enable him for consideration to the post of JGM-II in the scale of Rs. 4500-5700; in accordance with the recruitment rules. He wants a 'direction also that the post of JGM-II should be filled by promotion and not by deputation.2. The brief background facts are as follows--there are two posts of JGM-II, the first post is filled exclusively by the service officers of Defence of the rank of Brigadier and the other post is meant for promotion from the feeder grade of DGM/RM with five years of reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Memorandum dated 10.10.90 passed by the respondents after holding the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AIS Rules'), and the order dated 31.5.1991 clarifying the Memorandum (Annexure A-V and A-VI).2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) (Punjab Cadre), while on deputation to the Centre w.e.f. 15.6.79 to 30.9.83 was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of the AIS Rules, on the charges that he had preferred false Travelling Allowance claims when he was functioning as Controller of Publication. However, the applicant had denied these charges.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned penalty order dated 10.10.90 was sent to him by the Govt. of Punjab by their letter dated 30.10.90, i.e. one day before he retired from service on 31.10.90. In the impugned order dated 10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have made a prayer for reinstatement in service after quashing the impugned orders of removal from service passed against them by the competent authority and affirmed in appeal by the appellate.2. Briefly stated, the applicants 1 and 3 were Constables and the applicant No.2 was the Head Constable in Delhi Police. From 8.00 P.M.of 21st and till 8.00 A.M. of 22nd of April 1990, they were posted at Police Check Post, Ghazipur, within the jurisdiction of Kalyanpuri Police Station. At about 5.10 A.M., Constable Mohinder Singh was alleged to have stopped one truck coming from the direction of Ghaziabad and illegally recovered a sum of Rs. 10/- as entry fee from the truck driver with the facit consent and connivance of the Head Constable Radha Charan and Constable H. Suresh. In a common enquiry proceedings, the charges were found proved and accordingly the applicants were removed from service by...
Tag this Judgment!