Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
G-3 vs Union Of India Through on 21 December, 2012 cites

E.Nagachandran vs Union Of India Through The Chief ... on 16 July, 2011

Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG, appeared in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 11th April, 2012 in MA No. 1527/2011 & 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 in the matter of Shri E. Nagachandran Vs. Union of India on behalf of the applicant in the above cases by deserting his post during office hour and remaining absent from his office to attend the court cases on behalf of applicant and against the Union of India.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Uttar Pradesh Government vs Sabir Hussain on 30 April, 1975

14. The Apex Court in U.P. Government Vs. Sabir Hussain (1975 (4) SCC 703) held that the broad test of "reasonable opportunity" is, whether in the given case, the show cause notice issued to the delinquent servant contained or was accompanied by so much information as was necessary to enable him to clear himself of the guilt, if possible, even at that stage, or, in the alternative, to show that the penalty proposed was much too harsh and disproportionate to the nature of the charge established against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 21 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Man Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 1 May, 2008

He has, therefore, sought copy of the entire file, including all Note Sheets and correspondences, as well as the Draft Charge Sheet approved by the Minister of the Respondent Ministry dealing with the Show Cause Notice No. 11024/4 (II)/2011-ISS dated 02.05.2012, Show Cause Notice No. 11018/4/2012-ISS dated 31.05.2012 and the present Charge Sheet under reference dated 10.09.2012. The respondent, as stated earlier, did not respond to his request for over two months. However, the applicant filed this O.A on 06.11.2012, the respondent issued a Memorandum dated 23.11.2012 rejecting his request for supplying the documents simply saying that they are not relevant. As held by the Apex Court in Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2008 (7) SCALE 750), any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 191 - L S Panta - Full Document

Dhirendra Chandra Debnath vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 May, 2002

7. The applicant, on the other hand, relying upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Dhirendra Chandra Debnath Vs. Union of India (2003 (3) SLJ 258 CAT) argued that the aforesaid O.M. dated 23.11.2012 has been issued in violation of Rule 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the said case, the applicant therein had initially challenged the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, the appellate authority issued its order. Challenging the same, he contended that since the O.A. was admitted on 16.07.1992, the appeal which has been filed earlier and pending would abate under Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, the appellate order issued during the pendency of the OA on 23.11.1992, without taking leave of the court, is bad in law and not sustainable. Another ground taken by the applicants counsel therein was that the disciplinary authority exercising power under Rule 16 by issuing the charge sheet could not have enhanced it by the appellate authority as it had no jurisdiction to do so. While disposing the O.A., this Tribunal held that the contention of the applicants counsel with regard to the appellate order was correct as the O.A. was admitted on 16.07.1992 while the appellate order was passed on 23.11.1992 without taking leave of the Court. In that regard, the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the provisions contained in Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act in Chapter-IV which reads as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. vs T. Gattaiah And Ors. on 22 February, 1995

8. On merit, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri R.N. Singh has submitted that the listed documents in the charge sheet have already been made available to the applicant and the copy of the entire file dealing with the minor penalty charge sheet is not relevant in the context of the charges framed against him. The learned counsel has also argued that the applicant is adopting dilatory tactics. He has also stated that in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 relating to minor penalty proceedings, the charged officer has to be given only reasonable opportunity of making the representation and the same has already been given by making available the listed documents as mentioned in the charge sheet. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in IDL Chemicals Ltd. Vs. T. Guttaiah (1995 (Supp.) 3 SCC 573) wherein it has been observed that issuing the charge sheet, calling for explanation and giving due consideration to it is a procedure sufficient for imposing a minor penalty. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K Singh - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.V. Perumal Chettiar on 6 July, 1995

In this regard, they have referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.V. Perumal (1995 (5) SCC 474) wherein it has been held that the document must be relevant to the case and the relevance should be specifically stated by the employee. It is only then the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary authority is bound to supply relevant document but not each and every document asked for by the delinquent employee. But in the instant case, the respondent has submitted that the applicant, instead of responding to the specific charges for which all relevant and listed documents have already been available to him, is asking for copy of the entire file dealing with the minor penalty charge sheet on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities. This indicates that the documents sought by him are not relevant and it is only an attempt to divert the attention from the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. All the procedural requirements before the issue of minor penalty charge sheet have been followed and the respondents will produce the relevant file before the Tribunal before adjudicating the matter.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - T J Chouta - Full Document
1