Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Dushyant Singh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 5 January, 2016

               CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                  PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

                       O.A No. 1469/2014

            New Delhi this the 5th day of January, 2016

Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Katakey, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K. N. Srivastava, Member (A)

Dushyant singh
Age 31 years,
(Customer Relation Asstt 9CRA)
S/o. Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o. F-321, Jyoti Nagar,
Shahdra, Delhi-110 092.                            ....Applicant

(By Advocate : Ms. Meenu Mainee)

          Versus

1.   Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
     Through the Managing Director,
     Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
     Metro Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.   The Director (Operations),
     Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
     Metro Bhawan, New Delhi.

3.   The General Manager(Operation),
     Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
     Metro Bhawan, New Delhi.

4.   The DGM/O (Disciplinary Authority)
     Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
     Metro Bhawan, New Delhi.                  ...Respondents

(By Advocate : Mr. V. S. R. Krishna)

                        O R D E R (O R A L)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Katakey, Member (J) Heard Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

O.A 1469/2014

2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though the applicant in the present O.A has challenged the charge memo dated 20.03.2014, wherein an order dated 01.07.2015 was passed recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that all the listed documents will be supplied to the applicant, the respondents without supplying those documents though continued with the proceedings, but eventually withdrew the said charge memo vide order dated 14.08.2015 and thereafter issued another charge memo dated 23.10.2015, which has been challenged in O.A No. 4182/2015, which is pending for disposal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the withdrawal of the charge memo dated 20.03.2014 the cause in the O.A does not survive.

4. Having regard to the fact that the charge memo, which is put to challenge in the present O.A, has been withdrawn, the cause in the O.A does not survive and hence the O.A has become infractuous. The O.A accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

(K. N. Shrivastava)                          (Justice B.P. Katakey)
    Member (A)                                     Member (J)


/Mbt/
 3
    O.A 1469/2014