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 - Allahabad

Mulayam Singh vs General Manager, N E Rly on 9 February, 2022

                                             OA No. 330/00216/2021




                                                     Open Court


           CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                 ALLAHABAD BENCH
                     ALLAHABAD.

Allahabad, this the 09th day of February, 2022

Original Application No. 330/00216/2021

Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Mulayam Singh, Aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Jai Ram Singh,
R/o Village - Nagar, Post - Panehara, District - Aligarh.

                                                    . . .Applicant

By Advocate : Shri Ashish Srivastava


                           VERSUS

  1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
     Railway, Gorakhpur.

  2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway,
     Lucknow.


  3. Chief Mechanical Engineer (IT), Office of the General
     Manager, Modern Coach Factory, Raibarelly.

                                                 . . .Respondents

By Advocate : Shri P.K. Rai


                           ORDER

By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative) :

We have joined this Division Bench online through Video Conferencing.
Page 1 of 3
OA No. 330/00216/2021

2. Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and perused the record.

4. The applicant is aggrieved by an order by which he has been terminated from service. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the applicant's services were terminated by an oral order but subsequently the respondents issued a memorandum of charges to the applicant and pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings the services of the applicant have been terminated.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal is said to be still pending before the Appellate Authority. Since the statutory appeal is yet to be decided, it would be appropriate to dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Competent Authority/Appellate Authority to take a time bound decision on the appeal preferred by the applicant in accordance with Rule, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicant without any delay. Page 2 of 3

OA No. 330/00216/2021

6. With the aforesaid direction, the OA stands disposed off. No order as to costs.

7. All the MAs pending in this OA also get disposed of as having become infructuous.

       (Pratima K Gupta)                   (Tarun Shridhar)
        Member(Judicial)                Member(Administrative)



RKM/




                                                         Page 3 of 3