Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
R. K. Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual timeline of applicant's career and disciplinary proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's challenges to competent authority and procedural irregularities (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents' defense of competent authority and procedure compliance (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. mos competent but charge memo approval defective, voiding proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. inordinate unexplained delay vitiates disciplinary inquiry (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. penalty shockingly disproportionate absent pecuniary loss (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. quash proceedings, restore pension and gratuity (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
1.By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“8.1. To quash and set aside, first stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 11.10.2013.
8.2. To quash and set aside, the memorandum of charge bearing No. F No. 221/06/2011 AVD-II(B) dated 04.08.2015.
8.3. To quash and set aside orders No. F No. 221/06/2011 AVD-II(B) dated 10.01.2017.
8.4. To quash and set aside the rep
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
