Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R N Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Khem Raj Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to charge memo initiating disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9) |
| 2. violation of rule 14(3) due to nil witnesses and identical imputations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondents defend on relaxed evidence rules and future opportunities. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. precedents require witnesses to prove documents in inquiries. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. set aside charge memo; liberty for fresh compliant proceedings. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the memorandum dated 01.02.2023 vide which the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not acting on the applicant’s representation dated 08.02.2023 which he preferred on being aggrieved by the impugned memorandum.
2. In the O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“8.1 To quash & set-aside the memorandum dated 1.02.2023 including Article of Charge and imputation of misconduct whereby a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of
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
