Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs M/O Statistics on 20 August, 2015 cites

Dr. S.K. Das vs Union Of India Through on 15 July, 2014

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has completely denied the allegation of mala fide levelled by the applicant. 10 While admitting that the applicant was intervener in OA No. 1653/2010 decided on 20.10.2011 (S.K. Das versus UOI), the respondents denied that the appointment of the respondent no.2 had been quashed on the basis of the arguments of the applicant. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had filed more than 200 OAs before this Tribunal and other courts and, therefore, it is easy for him to link each and every decision of any of the courts. The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) No. 8124/2011 wherein the applicant, not being a party, was not permitted to argue the case. Aggrieved, the applicant filed CM Application for recall of judgment dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed at the admission stage itself without issuing notice. Therefore, the applicant was not at all a party in these cases and his attempt to make out a case of bias on part of accepting authority by linking the court cases is only an attempt to mislead the Tribunal. The respondents further stated that as per the rules, if the reporting officer is not in position and the review officer is taking work directly from the officer reported upon, then he may initiate the report and submit the same to his own superior for review. Accordingly, the said S.K. Das, the reviewing authority of the applicant initiated the report and submitted the same to the Secretary, 11 MOSPI. Since Secretary, MOSPI is the accepting authority, in the instant case, the accepting authority accepted the report.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next