Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Sushil Kaushik vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 17 August, 2011

Krishan vs M/O Railways on 6 May, 2016

In Sushil Kaushik vs. Govt. of N.C.T. & Others in OA No.3389/2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had struck down the debarment of a person from appearing in any examination to be conducted by the DSSSB for the next 5 years as definitely a very harsh decision, but liberty had been given to the respondents to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after giving a Show-Cause Notice to the applicant, and after considering his reply, and if need be, after referring the matter to the Expert on the subject.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 2 March, 2012

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. First of all, dealing with OA-117/2012 decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, there is no mention about the OA-3415/2010 and 65/2011 (supra) and the decision in OA-3389/2010 (supra). The fact is that the verification committee submitted by the DSSSB consisting of 3 senior Dy. Secretaries are not experts in the field of forensic science. Moreover, the committee is a creation of the Board itself and not a statutory authority. It was in that aforesaid background that this Tribunal has considered the issue in the common order in OA-3415/2010 and 65/2011 (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Mann vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 February, 2012

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon another case, OA 3389/2010  Shri Sushil Kaushik Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. decided by this Tribunal on 17.08.2011. The applicant therein was debarred from appearing in the examination for 05 years on the ground that he had indulged in misconduct in written examination for procuring impersonation. The said O.A. was allowed and the relevant parts of it read as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Kapil Dev vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 August, 2012

6. Shri Ajesh Luthra, the applicants learned counsel would also draw our attention to a communication from the DSSSB in respect of the posts of the Fire Operators under the post code No.003/2009 (Annex.X-1). As per this communication, references have been made in respect of 14 candidates for obtaining opinion of the FSL in the context of inconsistencies observed in respect of signatures and handwriting etc. Besides, the learned counsel would also state that as per the additional affidavit filed by the respondents dated 09.04.2012, the proposal for initiating debarment proceedings against the petitioner has also been approved by the Competent Authority of DSSSB in the file. Further, Shri Luthra would state the present case to be a covered one and cite the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the OA No.3389/2010 decided on 17.08.2011 (Shri Sushil Kaushik Vs. GNCTD and others).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Sunil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 2 March, 2012

In our considered view, this OA is squarely covered by the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3415/2010 and connected case (supra) decided on 21.7.2011 and OA-3389/2010 (supra) decided on 17.8.2011. In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA with similar directions. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order of the DSSSB dated 27.7.2011 with liberty to them to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicant to notice and giving him chance to prove his innocence even by permitting him to bring on record such material as may be relevant and opinion of handwriting and finger print expert. If the respondent  DSSSB still reiterates its earlier impugned decision, they shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and the applicant will have the liberty to challenge the same through appropriate proceedings, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1