Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. The applicant had joined the Central Railway as a Booking Clerk on 3.8.1993. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Booking Clerk. While serving as Senior Booking Clerk at Nashik Road Station he was issued with a Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 2.2.2006 with two charges (i) overcharging the decoy passenger by Rs.10/-and (ii) possession of Rs. 34/-excess in Railway Cash. 2. The Inquiry Officer conducted the disciplinary inquiry and submitted his report on 14.6.2008 and came to the conclusion that both the charges against the applicant were not proved. On 21.11.2008, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note to which the applicant had replied. On 31.7.2009, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order in which although he held that the first charge was not substantiated and in the second charge there was no malafide intention in respect of the excess amount, he imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for 5 years with cumulat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. The applicant joined the Indian Railways on 16.01.1981 and belongs to the 1979 Examination Batch of IRSE. In August, 2001 a major penalty charge-sheet was issued to the applicant and after a detailed enquiry the Inquiry Officer exonerated the applicant of all charges in March 2003. However, a disagreement note was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.10.2003 and the applicant was compulsorily retired in April 2005. 2. The applicant challenged the punishment of Compulsory Retirement before the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 315/2005 in February 2007. The above mentioned O.A. was allowed with full consequential benefits. The order of this Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2395/2007 by the respondents in February 2007. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court set aside the punishment order on procedural infirmities on 19.4.2007. The orders of the C.A.T. Bombay Bench was upheld and the matter was remanded to the Disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
(BOMBAY BENCH, CAMP: NAGPUR) Arvind J. Rohee, Member (Judicial): 1. This is a second round of litigation before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No.2 as the Appellate Authority thereby confirming the penalty of removal of the applicant from service imposed by Respondent No.3, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.11.2007 (Annexure A-2) and the subsequent order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Revisional Authority during the pendency of this proceeding, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ajni, Nagpur. On 25.07.2005 a Memorandum of Charge (Annexure A-3) was served on the applicant, initiating departmental proceeding against him on the ground that he allegedly demanded and accepted gratification of Rs.100/-from one Shri P.G. Joge, TGT, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ajni, Nagpur for not initiating any action against him on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. The applicant, who works as Superintendent of Central Excise at the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, New Mumbai, is aggrieved by the framing of charges against him by his superior authorities and the consequent punishment awarded to him. 2. He submits that he was working as Superintendent, Central Excise in Panvel City Range of Panvel Division in Raigad Commissionerate in the year 2007. On 25.01.2007, at around 4 p.m., the officers of ADG Vigilance found a container at Turbhe being loaded with potato. On enquiry, they found that there was no papers such as Export Invoice with the operator. The Ware-house Keeper deposed that the cargo is for export purpose. After about six months, the officers of the Vigilance Wing traced out the copy of the invoice pertaining to the said container from the Custom House, which revealed that the container was stuffed in Panvel area with the signature of the charged officer and the invoice had a rub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
A.J. Rohee, Member (J): 1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the applicant has challenged the impugned memorandum/chargesheet dated 30.07.2007, disagreement memo dated 18.04.2011 and the penalty order dated 28.06.2011 both issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.01.2012 confirming the penalty in the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as a Peon on 15.02.1994 in the office of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Lower Parel, Mumbai. While in service he qualified SSC examination in the year 1996 and was promoted to the cadre of Lower Division Clerk on 15.04.2004. 3. On 08.01.2007, the applicant was attached to Despatch Section. It is alleged that shri P.G. Panchal and Narotham Panchal, partners of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works (hereinafter referred to as the firm) made verbal complaint to Shri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI, CAMP: NAGPUR) Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant is the ex-railway employee, who has filed this O.A. for the following relief: "That the Honourabel Tribunal be pleased to pass an order to the respondents to release the Compassionate Allowances along with permissible allowances from date of removal (30.06.1995) of the applicant from service in the light of Railway Board's order No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5 dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure A-1). Any other relief which the Honourable CAT deems fit to pass in form of pecuniary benefit." 2. The facts of the case, as made out by the applicant in the present O.A. are as follows: The applicant was working in the erstwhile South East Railway and now South East Central Railway. While working as Diesel Assistant (now Assistant Loco Pilot) he was charge sheeted for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was removed from service w.e.f. 30.06.1995. The punishment order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. This Original Application No.404 of 2012 has been filed by Shri Indrapal N.Pazare and 19 others praying for setting aside the selection by the Indian Ordnance Factory, Chanda (Maharashtra) of 672 candidates for the post of Danger Building Workers (Semi Skilled) in short DBW (SS) vide its order No.2544/DR/TT/LB dated 23.06.2012 (Annexure A-1 to the OA) and 74 Examiners (SS) vide its order No.2544/DR/TT/MB dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure A-2 to the OA). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: "The Respondents published an advertisement in Employment News on 30th July, 2011 -5th August, 2011 and invited applications for 25 categories of posts including D.B. Worker (SS) and Examiner (SS). The essential qualification for the posts of DBW (SS) was (i) matriculation passed or equivalent examination and (ii) the candidates must possess NCTVT certificate in the Trade Attendant Operator in Chemical Plant (AOCP) failing which ITI pass or equivalent Diploma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. CAMP: NAGPUR) Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant is the ex-railway employee, who has filed this O.A. for the following relief : (8)1.1 to release the Compassionate Allowances along with permissible allowances from date of dismissal (12.07.1992) of the applicant from service in the light of Railway Board's order No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5 dated 04.11.2008. 1.2 18% interest on payable sum from date of dismissal from service. 1.3 Costs 1.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble CAT deems fit to pass in form of pecuniary benefit. 2. The facts of the case, as made out in the O.A., are as follows : "The applicant, while working as Khalasi Helper, was removed from service for remaining unauthorizedly absent without following the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority. The said order of removal was served on the applicant on 12.07.1992. The applicant challenged the removal order before the Appellate Authority but the said authority also held again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, being the second wife of the deceased railway employee, filed this Original Application challenging the order dated 23.04.2006, wherein, it is mentioned that after the death of railway employee on 10.12.85, his first wife Smt. Saraswatabai was sanctioned family pension payable through Post Office, Amgaon. The second wife intimated the authorities that the first wife expired on 23.08.1986 and on her death, she would be entitled for sanction of family pension. The Post Master Amgaon was requested to send the particulars of actual payment of family pension to Smt. Saraswatabai. This Tribunal, at the admission hearing stage of this Original Application on 08.11.2006, directed the Welfare Officer to personally visit the applicant and the Sectional Personal Inspector at Gondhia and thereafter get the pension papers finalised and necessary payments be made within a period of two months thereafter. 2. By the order dated 08.11.2006 this Tribunal d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI, CAMP: NAGPUR) Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant in this Original Application has challenged the communication addressed to Learned Advocate for the applicant dated 11.03.2008 whereby the claim of the applicant to be legally wedded wife of Late railway employee and her eligibility for family pension being a sole surviving legal heir was held to be doubtful. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the applicant tried to establish herself as legally wedded wife of Late railway employee through fraudulent means. Therefore, the applicant's claim for family pension was rejected by the said communication dated 11.03.2008. 2. Applicant has filed MA No.2087/2012 seeking condonation of delay. The alleged denial of pension is a continuing wrong and give rise to recurrent cause of action. Hence the MA No.2087/2012 for codonation of delay is allowed. 3. The fact of the case as stated by the applicant is that the applicant belongs to Tribal Community name...
Tag this Judgment!