Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative Member
R.K. Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. oa allowed; orders quashed with consequential reliefs. (Para 1 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. undisputed facts of appointment, proceedings, and penalties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. applicant's contention: charge memo lacks competent authority approval. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. respondents' defense: rule 13(2) permits initiation by minor penalty authority. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court holds proceedings vitiated without major penalty authority's approval. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
In the present OA, filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 16.09.2011 (Annex. A/1), Appellate Authority order dated 20.03.2012 (Annex. A/2), Revisional Authority order dated 23.07.2014 (Annex. A/3), Charge Sheet dated 14.09.2005 (Annex. A/4), IO Report (Annex.A/7) and entire disciplinary proceedings declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, against the rules and against the principles of natural justice and law of the land and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
