Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

B Rajganesh vs M/O Railways on 21 February, 2024

                                     1                    OA/310/00142/2019


                CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                         CHENNAI BENCH

                             OA/310/00142/2019

  Dated Wednesday 21st day of February Two Thousand Twenty Four

                                 CORAM :

            HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER (J)
                             &
      HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)

B. Raj Ganesh, S/o Boopathy, No.215/67-J, Vellore Main Road, Arcot,
Vellore District.                                     ... Applicant

By Advocate M/s T. Surendran

Vs

1. The Union of India, Chief Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory,
I.C.F., Chennai - 600 038.

2. Assistant Personal Officer, Integral Coach Factory, I.C.F., Chennai - 600
038.                                               ... Respondents

By Advocate Mr. D. Hariprasad
                                      2                     OA/310/00142/2019




                              ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

"(1) Set aside the termination order issued by Chief Personal Officer, PB/SIB/26/867131/RG, terminating the Petitioner from the employment, Notice No. 3 of 2013, dated 20.05.2014 by the 1st Respondent herein followed by the termination order dt. 23.06.2014 by the Second respondent herein. (2) To direct the respondents to consider the representation which was sent on 22.04.2016."

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, no representation was made on behalf of the applicant. No request made for pass over.

3. As per the records made available, appearance on behalf of the applicant has been erratic.

4. It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

5. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.




 (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)                         (MANISH GARG)
      MEMBER(A)                                       MEMBER (J)
                       21.02.2024
AS