Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative Member
Anand Kishore Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of disciplinary proceedings initiation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's arguments: quasi-judicial acts not misconduct. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' counter: no delay, natural justice followed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. limited judicial review scope in disciplinary matters. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. precedents: rajguru case protects quasi-judicial functions. (Para 11) |
| 6. quasi-judicial errors not misconduct absent mala fides. (Para 12) |
| 7. charge memo quashed; proceedings unsustainable. (Para 13 , 14) |
O R D E R
Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
1.In the instant O.A., the applicant being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) and the orders appointing inquiring officer and the presenting officer dated 05.06.2023, passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Disciplinary authority, has filed the present O.A. under 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking the following reliefs :-
“(A) call upon the official respondents herein to forthwith place before this Hon’ble Tribunal, in original, all the relevant and material documents,which gave rise to the issuance of the impugned documents at Annexure A/1 to AnnexureA/3 hereto;
(B) upon a close perusal a
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
