Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Sarat Kumar Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of recruitment and impersonation allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prior tribunal orders and rejection letters. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties' contentions on res judicata and antecedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. rejection of res judicata and limitation pleas. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. conflicting lti reports require geqd verification. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. directions for document retrieval and geqd examination. (Para 20 , 21) |
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The facts and issues involved in both the OAs being found same and similar to each other, albeit we have heard the matters one after the other, this common order would govern both the cases.
2. Earlier, both the applicants filed OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 stating inter alia that they were selected for the post of Gangman/Gr. D in Railways pursuant to Employment Notification No.1/98. But, they could not be appointed on the ground of mismatch of LTI in the attendance sheet for written test and in course of verification. In the said circumstances, FIRs were lodged before the concerned police station by the Respondent-Railway, which were registered as GR Case No. 621/2009 before the Learned J
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
