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 - Ernakulam

K.R Purushothaman vs Union Of India on 22 November, 2013

      

  

  

                  CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                            ERNAKULAM BENCH

                              O.A.No.1116/2013

               Friday , this the 22nd day of November, 2013

C O R A M :

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

K.R Purushothaman
S/o.Raman Nambisan
Cash Overseer, Chavakkad MDG
Post Office, Chavakkad - 680 506
Residing at Kodalip Pushpa Ram
Pazhummana, Chemmantha
Kecheri - 680 501                                         -  Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.V Sajith Kumar)


                     Versus


1.        Union of India, represented by Secretary
          to Government, Department of Posts,
          Ministry of Communications,
          Government of India
          New Delhi - 110 011

2.        The Chief Postmaster General
          Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 001

3.        The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
          Thrissur Postal Division, Thrissur - 680 001

4.        The Sub-Postmaster, MDG
          Department of Post, Chavakkad,
          Thrissur, Pin - 680 506                         - Respondents

(By Advocate Ms.Jishamol Cleetus, ACGSC)

      This application having been heard on 22nd November, 2013 this
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following :-

                                   O R D E R

BY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant who is stated to be working as Cash Overseer at Chavakkad MDG within the jurisdiction of respondent no.3 has filed this Original Application impugning Annexure A-1 order passed by the said authority treating the period of his unauthorised absence from May 31, 2013 till August 02, 2013 as Dies-non. Applicant has raised several contentions in support of his plea that the above order is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and vitiated. However, at this stage we do not propose to consider those contentions since in our view respondent no.2 has to necessarily consider all those contentions and take a decision.

2. It will be open to the applicant to submit a memorandum of appeal/review before respondent no.2 within two weeks from today. If such an appeal/review is received by respondent no.2 within two weeks, the same shall be considered and an appropriate decision thereon shall be taken strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the same. Necessarily, respondent no.2 shall afford sufficient opportunity to the applicant to be heard before any such decision is taken.

3. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms.

K.GEORGE JOSEPH                                    JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

sv