Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing H.K. Gupta Son Of Shri R.K. Das Gupta And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 29 November, 2006

K.P. Jain, Ips vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 December, 2006

2. At the outset we would like to clarify that we had reserved this case on 31.10.2006 when we were informed that a batch of writ petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on the question whether downgrading of ACRs needs to be communicated or not. Therefore, we were awaiting the outcome of those writ petitions. However, till date neither hearing is complete in those cases nor any final decision has been taken in those cases. On the contrary, Counsel for the respondents has produced the judgment dated November 16, 2006 given in Writ Petition (C) No. 7044/2002 in the case of S.K. Soni v. Union of India and Ors. by another bench of Hon'ble High Court wherein it is observed that if remarks are recorded by the Reporting Officers whereby certain aspects of working of the petitioner are appreciated while pointing out his draw backs, the said remarks cannot be said to be adverse in nature. In this case, it was also held that there was no occasion for communicating any adverse remarks to the petitioner as they were not adverse in nature. In view of above, we do not think any purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending any longer, therefore, we have applied our mind to the various aspects of the matter and are deciding it on merit.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Resident Of vs Union Of India Through on 25 August, 2015

Insofar as the third of the issues relating to malice is concerned, the principal ground of the applicant is that in OA No. 1653 of 2010 (Sh. S. K. Das Vs. UOI), the appointment of respondent no. 2 was quashed by the Tribunal on the basis of his arguments. Though stated ambiguously, the applicant invariably created the impression in his pleadings and oral submissions that he has had major contributions in getting the appointment of Respondent No. 2 quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2011 in the afore OA for which he has not been forgiven by the latter to this date. Per contra, we also take note of submissions of the Respondents that the applicant had appeared only as intervener in OA No. 1653/2010 in which one S.K. Das had been the applicant. The applicant was also not a party to the Writ Petition No. 8124/2011 filed before the Honble High Court of Delhi wherein the afore order of the Tribunal had been quashed vide order dated 17.09.2013. It had also been submitted by the respondents that when the applicant wanted to make submissions on behalf of the respondent in the above Writ Petition, he was not permitted to do so by the Honble High Court of Delhi as he had not been a party to the proceedings. Moreover, his CM for recall of the order dated 17.09.2013 had been dismissed by the Honble High Court of Delhi at the admission stage itself without having issued notice to the Ministry. In view of the claims and counter claims, it is difficult for us to assert with any degree of certainty as to what extent the applicant can legitimately claim the laurels for the orders passed in OA No.1653/2010 as they were passed on 20.10.2011. However, we take note of the argument of the respondents that the case had been filed and contested by the applicant S.K. Das in OA No.1653/2010 and the matter does not survive as the order of the Tribunal had been set aside by the Honble High Court of Delhi, as referred to above, and that the Government does not act on the basis of malice against persons who had contested its decisions before courts.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudarshan Lal vs M/O Science And Technology on 28 November, 2018

16. We have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the written arguments. LC for applicant placed reliance upon O.A. No. 8 579/2017 titled Chaman Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India, O.A. No. 1409 of 2009 titled P.G.George v/s Union of India, O.A. No. 1519/2008 titled R.S.Gupta v/s Union of India, Chaman Lal Lakhanpal v/s UPSC, 1998 (3) SLR 436 (P&H), P.N. Premchandran v/s State of Kerala, 2004 (1) SCC 245 and Union of India v/s Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007 (6) SCC 704.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

Insofar as the third of the issues relating to malice is concerned, the principal ground of the applicant is that in OA No. 1653 of 2010 (Sh. S. K. Das Vs. UOI), the appointment of respondent no. 2 was quashed by the Tribunal on the basis of his arguments. Though stated ambiguously, the applicant invariably created the impression in his pleadings and oral submissions that he has had major contributions in getting the appointment of Respondent No. 2 quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2011 in the afore OA for which he has not been forgiven by the latter to this date. Per contra, we also take note of submissions of the Respondents that the applicant had appeared only as intervener in OA No. 1653/2010 in which one S.K. Das had been the applicant. The applicant was also not a party to the Writ Petition No. 8124/2011 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the afore order of the Tribunal had been quashed vide order dated 17.09.2013. It had also been submitted by the respondents that when the applicant wanted to make submissions on behalf of the respondent in the above Writ Petition, he was not permitted to do so by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as he had not been a party to the proceedings. Moreover, his CM for recall of the order dated 17.09.2013 had been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the admission stage itself without having issued notice to the Ministry. In view of the claims and counter claims, it is difficult for us to assert with any degree of certainty as to what extent the applicant can legitimately claim the laurels for the orders passed in OA No.1653/2010 as they were passed on 20.10.2011. However, we take note of the argument of the respondents that the case had been filed and contested by the applicant S.K. Das in OA No.1653/2010 and the matter does not survive as the order of the Tribunal had been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as referred to above, and that the Government does not act on the basis of malice against persons who had contested its decisions before courts.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.I. Shibu vs Union Of India Represented By on 3 February, 2014

3. It is seen that the applicant had replied to the audit objection raised by the internal audit wing on the fixation of his pay vide Annexure A-8 letter dated 29.07.2011. Relying on the order dated 08.10.1991 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of D.K. Das Gupta vs. Union of India, the applicant had submitted that the observation of the internal audit wing is not correct and refixation of pay and recovery thereof cannot be implemented. As per the statement of the applicant, nothing transpired after his representation and he was under the bonafide belief that the issue has been settled once and for ever. The applicant has also submitted that the 4th respondent is not the decision making authority as far as the pay fixation is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1