Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2008)(1)SLJ37CAT
1. The applicant having faced a departmental proceeding and awarded punishment of compulsory retirement, has essentially come in this original application for reduction of his punishment as was directed by this Tribunal in different original applications filed on the subject.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the applicant, it will be trite to look at the background facts, as below: (i) The applicant had come up against the punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings in O.A. No. 227/1996 which was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure A/3). Considering all the points, while finding no flaw in holding the disciplinary proceeding, this Tribunal also considered the question of quantum of punishment. The then Hon'ble Vice-Chairman and Hon'ble Member (A) were of the opinion that the punishment of compulsory retirement was on the higher side. A direction was issued to the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh regarding quantum of punishment. (ii) The o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ranchi
1. Both the applicants, being Extra Departmental Delivery Agents (for short, EDDA), since retired, have prayed for quashing the orders dated, 1st October, 1994, of the respondent No. 4, whereby, they have been made to retire on superannuation after having already completed 65 years of age-vide Annexure-A/1 & A/2. They have also prayed to accept their respective date of birth being 16th March 1932, (in case of applicant No. 1), and 27th October 1931, (in case of applicant No. 2), and, accordingly, to provide benefit of continuing in service till the age of 65 years on the basis of those dates of births, together with direction for payment of arrears of pay and allowances. There was prayer also to cancel the appointments of private respondents No. 5 & 6 on the post earlier held by them.2. Both the applicants have joined hands together to challenge the orders of their respective superannuation (Annexures-A/1 & A-1/1). It was urged on behalf of applicant No. 1 that he was appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ranchi
1. This is an application praying to quash an order dated, 14th June, 1990 [Annexure-2], of the respondent No. 3, whereby, the respondent No.4, Mehdi Hassan, has been promoted to the post of Accountant, said to be by way of superseding the claim of the applicant. It was further prayed to quash the order dated, 13th February, 1996 [Annexure-7], of the respondent No. 3, whereby, the applicant's second representation was rejected. Be it pointed out here that an earlier representation in this regard made by the applicant on 27th August, 1990, also was rejected by an earlier order dated 12th March, 1991 [Annexure-4].2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 16th March, 1954, and was confirmed to the post as such on 1 st January, 1969, whereas, the respondent No. 4, Mehdi Hassan was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 15th April, 1986, and was confirmed to the post on 1st May,...
Tag this Judgment!