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 1]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs R.Sreedharan on 21 June, 2011

Author: C.T.Ravikumar

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, C.T.Ravikumar

       

  

  

 
 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                PRESENT:

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                        &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

         MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/17TH MAGHA 1933

                                    OPCAT.No. 402 of 2012 (Z)
                                           -------------------------
          M.A.NO.46/2012 IN OA.452/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
                               TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
                                            ...................

    PETITIONER(S):MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. UNION OF INDIA,
        REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
        DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI.

    2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
        DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    3. THE CHAIRMAN
        CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
        DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

    4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
        C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
        KOCHI-682 018.

       BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

    RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

       R.SREEDHARAN,
       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (RETIRED)
       BABY COTTAGE, RICE RESEARCH ROAD, PONNURUNNY,
       VYTTILA (PO), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 019.

      BY ADV. SRI. K.M.V.PANDALAI

     THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2012,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

OP(CAT)NO.402/2012 Z




                                APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:




EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
            ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN
           OA NO.452 OF 2011 DATED 21.6.2011.

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR
          GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (VIGILANCE) DATED 5.12.2011.

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
            ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN
            M.A.NO.843/2011 IN O.A.NO.452 OF 2011 DATED 12.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
            NO.46 OF 2012 DATED 30.12.2011.

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
            ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN
            M.A.NO.46/2011 IN O.A NO.452 OF 2011 DATED 13.1.2012.



RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:                N I L




                                                         /TRUE COPY/




                                                         P.S.TO JUDGE


Kss



                    THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
                                C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
                       ----------------------------------------
                              O.P.(CAT)No.402 of 2012
                       ----------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 6th day of February, 2012

                                      JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Having considered the entire gamut of facts and sequence of events, we do not find any ground of jurisdictional infirmity or illegality warranting interference with Ext.P5 order whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has, for reasons recorded by it, refused to enlarge time for completion of disciplinary action against the respondent. The excuse that the file is lying in the office of the CVC is not being considered by us in detail further because different proceedings can still come up before the Tribunal in connection with the order passed on the original application from which this original petition arises, having found no jurisdictional infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/6.2.2012