Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, J, Sangam Narain Srivastava, A
Sakharam Vitthal Kharatmol – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of bribery allegations, departmental inquiry, penalty, appeal exoneration, and impugned revision notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents defend notice as valid revision by competent agm; applicant contests prematurity and authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of rules, notifications, hierarchy confirming agm lacks direct control over engineering staff. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. notice quashed for lack of jurisdiction; alternative remedy exhaustion not bar to intervention. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“8.a This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-Engg) dated 02.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 is void ab initio and quash and set aside the same being contrary to Rules, and well settled principle of law.
b. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to desist from conducting hea
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
