Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, presently working as Senior Technical Officer, Centre for Development of Advance Computing (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DAC'), Pune University Campus, Pune, has filed this Original Application challenging the order of suspension dated 14.05.2013. The order of suspension is set out herein below : ORDER OF SUSPENSION [Reference: Rule 10(1), CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra (Emp. ID: 102018), Senior Technical Officer, Applied A1 Group, C-DAC, Pune is contemplated. Now, therefore, the undersigned (the Appointing Authority), the authority empowered, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby places the said Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra under suspension with immediate effect. It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force the headquarters of Dr. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicants have challenged the two orders dated 16.08.2012 and 01.09.2012 issued by the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda. The order dated 16.08.2012 was issued purportedly in compliance with the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in O.A. No. 286/2011 (Shri Bhushan Devidas Rakhe Vs. Union of India and Others). The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and take a proper decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment and also to take a further action with regard to the appointment of the applicant. The General Manager, by the impugned order dated 16.08.2012, held that it would not be proper to offer appointment in the post of Foreman Grade-II to Shri Bhushan Devidas Rakhe and the case was disposed of by the order dated 01.09.2012. The General Manager declined to offer appointment in the post of Fireman Grade-II to three other applicants of the O.A. No. 68...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 21.02.2013 issued by the Respondents thereby transferring him from Aurangabad Factory to Pune outlet/Branch of the Respondents. 2. The facts of the case in brief giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated as under: That the Respondent No.1 is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860 and it runs a factory and training institute. Its registered office is located at Aurangabad having branches within the territory of State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No.2 supervises and controls the activities of the Respondent No.1. There is a Branch/Factory outlet of Respondent No.1 at Pune. The Respondents are engaged in the business of manufacture of Tool and imparting training. The Tool Room and Training Centre was established in the year 1990 in collaboration with Federal Republic of Germany for promotion of technical educat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. Heard Shri S.P.Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. No one appears for the respondents. 2. The applicant has challenged the communication dated 17.06.2013 addressed to the Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineering Services, Kalyan Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur written on behalf of Chief Engineer, PBSO. It was intimated by this letter that the request of the applicant for retention of accommodation on education ground for second academic year was not considered as there was no provision under SRO 308 for retention of accommodation for second academic year for Civilian Officers. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the applicant would be treated as an unauthorized occupant with effect from 16th April 2013. By the second impugned letter dated 18.06.2013, the Station Headquarters, Pune was requested to initiate suitable action against the applicant as per procedure. 3. Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant presently working as Director Safety has challenged the letter dated 09.04.2013 rejecting the representation of the applicant for his posting at Mumbai. The said letter was issued pursuant to the order of this Tribunal passed on 22.02.2013 in OA No.456/2012 filed by the applicant. This Tribunal directed the concerned authority to consider the representation of the applicant and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the said OA, the applicant challenged the order of his transfer dated 09.08.2012 transferring him from Mumbai to Regional Labour Institute (for short RLI), Kanpur as in charge. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that he made a detailed representation pursuant to the order of this Tribunal, but major issues raised in the said representation were not disposed of, therefore, the impugned order is not a speaking order at all. The impugned order as well as the order of transfer have been issued with a malafide intention to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
A.K. Basheer, Member (J): 1. Applicant is presently working as Superintendent of Customs under respondent No.2 in Mumbai. He joined the Customs Department as Preventive Officer in July 1992 and was subsequently promoted as Superintendent in May 2005. In September 2011, applicant was served with Annexure A.I. Memorandum of charge alleging that he had knowingly availed of the benefit reserved for Ex-Servicemen for the second time and got employment in the Customs Department in an unfair manner and suppressing the fact that he had initially got the employment in Canara Bank as an Ex-Serviceman. The said charge-sheet is under challenge in this Original Application. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant had joined the Indian Army as Havildar in the Army Educational Corps in 1977. He joined Army Cadet College in the year 1981. However, in March 1983 he was ordered to be invalided out of Military Service on medical grounds. In November 1983 applicant joined Canara Bank as a Clerk under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
A.K. Basheer, Member (J). 1. Applicant is working as Junior Telecom Officer in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited at Amravati. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in terms of Memorandum of Charge dated December 29, 2010. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the Article of Charge at this stage, particularly in view of the order that we propose to pass. 2. It is on record that the Inquiry Officer had submitted Annexure A-4 report dated March 30, 2012 before the Disciplinary Authority. On receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority had forwarded a copy of the same to the applicant and invited his response thereto. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has passed Annexure A1 order in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub rule (1) of Rule 37 of BSNL Conduct and Appeal Rules 2006 remitting the case for further enquiry. By this order the Disciplinary Authority has also appointed Shri S.V. Dange as the new Inquiry Officer. While doing so the Disciplinary Authority h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant filed this Original Application challenging the action of the respondents in not giving him appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the applicant are that the applicant was working as Mail/Passenger Driver. The applicant was declared medically unfit for the post of Passenger Driver w.e.f. 01.11.1999 by the Medical Board. Thereafter, the applicant was declared medically decategorized on 06.01.2000. The applicant made his first representation dated 17.02.2000 for seeking voluntary retirement from service. He made another representation on 23.10.2000 seeking voluntary retirement and also requesting the respondents to consider his second son, i.e., Applicant No. 2, for appointment on compassionate ground. Since no reply was received from the respondents, the Applicant no. 1 made another representation dated 28.11.2000 praying for voluntary retirement. The applicant retired voluntarily w....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Mrs. Leena Mehendale, Member (A). 1. This OA is filed on 29th April, 2011 by the applicant seeking the following reliefs against Departmental Enquiry and punishment. a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2011 with all consequential benefits. b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to grant promotion to the Applicant to the post of Additional Commissioner of Customs and Excise w.e.f. 21.11.2001 when the Applicant's immediate Junior Shri S.C.Rohtagi was promoted with all consequential benefits. c) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the Applicant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of DCRG, Leave Encashment and Commutation of Pension w.e.f. 01.02.2005 till the date of payment of retirement benefits. 2. The charge against applicant was of being in receipt of bribe money as under : Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). The applicant, presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, has challenged letter No. CCIT/MUM/ACR/07 dated 07.12.2007 issued by Respondent No. 2 communicating adverse remarks to the Applicant for the year 2006-2007 as well as Order No. CCIT/MUM/CR/Order/2009-2010 dated 03/04/2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 being the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, whereby the said respondent held that two adverse remarks in column 17(a) and 17(b) in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 2006-2007 were sustained. The said Respondent no. 2 was of the view that there was not sufficient material to sustain the adverse remarks in column 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 19(1a), 19(1b), 19(3) and 19(5). The said adverse remarks were expunged and replaced by the remarks 'Good'. The Respondent No. 2, while sustaining the adverse remarks in Column 17(a) and 17 (b) held that review notes of Commissioner Of Income Tax was damaging again...
Tag this Judgment!