Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Anil Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of applicant's appointment and disciplinary proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. vigilance trap violated manual procedures and lacked independent witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. inquiry officer bias and procedural violations per supreme court precedents. (Para 6 , 7 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. inquiry followed vigilance manual; no bias or procedural prejudice shown. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 5. punishment proportionate; no evidence of discrimination. (Para 17) |
| 6. no prejudice from vigilance manual violations; full defense opportunity given. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. limited judicial review in disciplinary matters; no re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. original application dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 30) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“i) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside all the three impugned orders dated 21.02.2013, passed by respondent no.5, impugned Appellate Order dated 06.05.2013 passed by respondent no.4 and impugned revisional o
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
