Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Judicial Member, Anjani Nandan Sharan, Administrative Member
Chanwati Devi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of conviction and disputed dismissal despite sentence stay. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents justify action under rules post-conviction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. applicants argue mechanical penalty; respondents defend authority. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. stay of sentence does not suspend conviction for discipline. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. dismissal upheld; no retiral benefits during conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
“i. to set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.20174 (Annexure No.1 to the O.A.) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure No.2) passed by the respondent No.3.
ii. to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary as well as entire retiral benefits with all consequential benefits to the applicant.”
3. During the pendency of the instant Original Application, the so
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
