Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is a common judgment in respect of O.A. 23/96, 495/96 and 1222/97 which were heard together as they were all in respect of the Same selection for the post of Assistant Guard conducted by the Palghat Division of the Southern Railway. O.A. 958/96 filed against the selection for the post of Assistant Guard conducted by the Trivandrum Division of the Southern Railway was also heard along with these three O.As, but as the same pertained to Trivandrum Division, separate order has been made.2. In O.A. 23/96, the applicant challenged letter No. J/P 608/VIII/Asst. Guards dated 9.10.95 (A3) under which the panel for the post of Assistant Guard had been published pursuant to the selection and No. J/P. 608/VIII/Asst. Guard dated 22.11.95 (A5) of the third respondent to the applicant disposing of his representation dated 13.10.95 (A4).3. The applicant stated in the O.A. that he while working as Traffic Porter at Erode Railway Station of Palghat Division, applied in response to the notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. In this application the applicant Sri George Philip, Scientific Officer (SC), Plasma Division of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC for short) has challenged the order of the 1st respondent imposing on him the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with effect from the date of earlier order of removal from service dated 18th December, 1990.2. Shorn of details which are not relevant, the material averments in the application can be stated as follows.3. The applicant joined the Plasma Physics Section of BARC as a Scientific Officer (SC) on 1st August, 1974. The applicant in 1980-81 applied for a Commonwealth Scholarship for higher studies offered by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of India, through proper channel. Pursuant to the above application, the applicant was directed to appear for an interview before the selection committee on 2.2.81. He was selected by the interview board. Pursuant to the above selection, the applicant received an official notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against G.O. (Rt) 6444-97/GAD dated 26.7.1997 (Annexure A-3) issued by the third respondent, 2. The applicant while working as Chief Conservator of Forests (Development), was issued with a suspension order initiating disciplinary proceedings vide G.O. (Rt). No. 5784/ 88/GAD dated 15.7.1988 and was served with charge memo on 22.2.1989 which was replied to by him on 9.3.1989. According to the applicant, he was reinstated in the post of Chief Conservator of Forests on 19.12.1989 and on 2.5.1991 he was promoted as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and he retired on 30.6.1991. According to him, he made a number of representations for release of his full pension and other benefits and advise him the fate of the enquiry proceedings. On 19.5.1997, the applicant received G.O. (Rt) No. 4006/97/GAD dated 19.5.1997(Annexure A-2) from the third respondent advising him that the disciplinary case initiate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant against order No. DET/Con/91-97 Dated 11.4.96 issued by Respondent No. 1 (Disciplinary authority), order No. TDM/A/96-97/4 dated 31st July, 1996 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Appellate authority) and order No. STA/P-149/96 dated 10.2.97 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Revisional authority) (Annexures A1, A2 and A16 respectively).2. According to applicant, while working as Telephone Operator, Kayamkulam, he was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for short) by issue of a charge sheet on 26.8.83. After enquiry, on 14.12.87, the Disciplinary authority removed the applicant from service. On appeal, the Appellate authority set aside the order of removal and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary authority directing de novo proceedings from the stage of drawing up of the charge sheet.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Driver at the Cochin Regional Unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau during August, 1991.While working as such, when the office was shifted to Trivandrum, the applicant was also transferred to Trivandrum and was continued to be engaged in the 4th respondent's office, where he is still continuing.Though the applicant has been continuously working since 1991 and has completed more than 206 days in a year when the Scheme for Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation dated 10th September 1993 (Annexure Al) came into force, the claim of the applicant for grant of temporary status and regularisation is not being considered by the respondents.He submitted a representation on 8.2.95 (Annexure A2) to the second respondent claiming the benefit of temporary status and regularisation.The applicant states that in the year 1993 he has completed 273 days, in 1994, 255 days, in 1995, 347 days, in 1996, 352 days and in 1997, 279 days and that as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This application is directed against the order dated 4.6.98 (A.8) issued by the respondent calling upon the applicant to submit his fresh written statement of defence to the Memorandum of Charges dated 12.11.96 proposing to continue the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the Criminal Court has acquitted him giving benefit of doubt. The applicant seeks a declaration that the respondent is not competent to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against him in Annexure. A.3 Memorandum of Charges after his acquittal on merits by the Criminal Court in respect of the same set of facts and allegations in a full dress enquiry. The foundation of the criminal prosecution against the applicant as also the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by A.3 Memorandum of Charges was that the applicant had while working as SPM Kulathupuzha on 19.12.1995 beat up Shri L. Mohanan Achary, SDI, Punalur while the latter was taking meals in the tiffin room of Kulathupuzha S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant is an ex-serviceman, reemployed as a Peon under the second respondent. When he was discharged from the Defence Force he was suffering 20% disability on account of breathing problems. He was initially re-employed in the Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, New Delhi. While he was working in the office of the Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts, Airforce, New Delhi, on his request on compassionate grounds, he was transferred to the Defence Pension Disbursing Office, Kottayam in January, 1988. While the applicant was working there, an order was issued in November, 1994 transferring the applicant from Kottayam to the Zonal Office, Defence Pension Disbursement Office, Trivandrum. The applicant challenged the order in O. A. 1666/ 94. There was an interim stay in that case. However on service of notice on the Application on the respondents, the transfer was cancelled. Again the applicant was by order dated 12.1.1998 transferred to Cannanore. Alleging that the tran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant appeared for the Civil Services Examination-1995 and on the basis of his performance, he was placed at rank No. 176. He had indicated his preference for All India Services only and had not given any preference regarding the other services or posts. By order dated 4th December, 1996 of the first respondent, the applicant was allotted to the Central Secretariat Service. The applicant made a representation on 12.12.96 to the first respondent (Annexure-A2) requesting that he may be allotted a Group-A service commensurate with his ranking, though he had not in his application form for the main examination indicated any preference for services or posts other than the All India Services, In reply to the representation, the applicant was told by the Annexure-A3 order dated 15th January, 1997 of the first respondent that in view of the note to Rule-2 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1995, he was considered for allocation to the remaining services/posts in which there w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant while working as Assistant Station Master, Koregaon was placed under suspension by order issued by the 4th respondent on 14.3.84. Thereafter an enquiry against him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was initiated by service of a memorandum of charges dated 21.3.84. There were two articles of charges. The allegation forming the 1st article of charge is that the applicant while working as Assistant Station Master misused the control phone from 19.35 hours to 21.30 hours on 13.3.84, when he was not on duty in violation of para 5.08 of General and Subsidiary Rules and thereby he has committed serious misconduct and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and violated Rule 3(i)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Article 2 of the charge was that the applicant who was rostered to work at Koregaon station from 21.30 hours on 13.3.84 to 07.30 hours on 14.3.84 had come to the station premises much earlier to...
Tag this Judgment!