Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Gunjan Prasad vs Govt. Of India on 28 April, 2015

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs M/O Statistics on 27 November, 2015

11. Insofar as the first of the issues is concerned, we start by stating the generic principle that the purpose of writing APAR is not to settle scores but to give an opportunity to the concerned employee to improve upon. This has been considered by the Tribunal at length in Gunjan Prasad versus Government of India [ MANU/CA/0278/2015], relevant portion whereof is extracted hereunder for the sake of better clarity:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pramod Kumar vs M/O Finance on 9 May, 2025

Date: 2025.05.09 17:28:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Finance in OA No.100/3017/2017 dated 23rd October, 2018 whereby the evaluation made by the Reviewing Officer for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.10.2014 was set aside and evaluation made by the Reporting Officer was treated as final by the Accepting Authority for all intents and purposes and the applicant therein was rated as '8.1' for all purposes by the Tribunal. 10.8. Mr.Walia further placed reliance on the order of the CAT, Principal Bench dated 28th April, 2015 in the case of Shri Gunjan Prasad Vs. Government of India in OA No.1233/2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that "it implies that the APAR of the applicant has been recorded in negligent and careless manner". It was held that "the point stands well proved that both the reporting and the reviewing officers have recorded their remarks in the APAR well past the deadlines of 30th June and 31st August as mandated in 20 OA No.269/2016 the OM dated 16th February, 2009 and, therefore, the OA was allowed". The above judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (c) 5218/2018 vide judgment dated 11th September, 2018 10.9.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amerndra Kumar Singh vs M/O Water Resources on 29 May, 2024

25. Further, the designated reporting officer demitted office on 31.10.2017. Once the designated reporting officer and review officer demitted their respective offices, 'no report period' is certified and it is attached for the relevant period. No such certificate was attached in this case. However, for the period from 01.04.2017 to 01.11.2017 in line with OM dated 16.02.2009, the applicant received a certificate dated 14.06.2018 for "no report period" since both the reporting officer and reviewing officer had demitted their respective offices. We fail to understand as to why the same practice was (37) O.A. No.728/2020 not followed in relation to impugned APARs. The issue of delay in submitting APARs by reporting and reviewing officers resulting in quashing of such APAR has been dealt with at length in the judgment of Shri Gunjan Prasad vs. Govt. Of India, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance 2015 SCC OnLine CAT 3215 as under-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next