Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAY KUMAR SINGH versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijay Kumar Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. - 2201 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 15843 (20 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2201 of 2002

Vijay Kumar Singh .........................................petitioner

Vs.

Central Administrative Tribunal

and others .......................................respondents.

Hon'ble Amitava Lala.J.

Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

By this writ petition, order in original application No. 890 of 1995 passed Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad is challenged.

By the ultimate order of the Tribunal , the dismissal of the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was accepted and the the enquiry report was upheld.

The grievance of the petitioner in the charge-sheet is that the incident took on 30.3.1993 and no F.I.R of the said incident was lodged against the petitioner either for 30.3.1993 or 30.7.1993.

We find from the charge-sheet that every-where 30.7.1993 has been mentioned as the date of the said incident leaving aside one where the date is given as 30.3.1993. This is nothing but mistake on the part of the authority concerned. It is held by the Tribunal to the extent that the incident took place on 30.7.1993 was true and the applicant was guilty of misconduct.

Secondly, the petitioner contended before this Court that no copy of the enquiry report was served by the disciplinary authority but we find from the order of the disciplinary authority as well as from the order of the Tribunal that the copy of the enquiry report was served by registered post at the residence of the petitioner on 5.2.1994,7.2.1994,8.2. 1994, 9.2.1994 and 10.2.1994 and thereafter the postal department sent it back with the remark that the applicant was not available despite a number of visits. The Inspector of Works ( IOW) sought to serve the said paper on 18.2.1994 on the applicant but the applicant refused to accept the same in the presence of Sri Suresh Chandra , Kalasi and Sri Dharam Pal Singh.

The respondents in their counter affidavit have also given the same facts . The writ petitioner has denied the contention made by the respondents in their counter affidavit as false and concocted evasively not categorically denied whether he was present at his residence on the aforesaid dates and whether had gone to office on 18.2.1994 or not .Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no fault on the part of the disciplinary authority to serve the enquiry report on the applicant. So far as the statement of other witnesses are concerned, it is not necessary that all witnesses should have corroborated the version in statement of allegations. There is no averment on the part of the writ petitioner that such witnesses have made any denial that the alleged incident took place.

Therefore, ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the original application and the same is dismissed as lacking in merits.

It is recorded hereunder that against the order of the punishing authority the petitioner has preferred an appeal which was dismissed, and then the petitioner filed the original application.

At the stage, we find that number of opportunities have been given to the petitioner for the purpose of denial of the allegation and there is no lacuna in the decision making process by the authority.

Therefore, we cannot hold any contrary view against the order passed by the Tribunal.

The writ petition , therefore, stands dismissed without imposing any costs.

The interim order , if any, stands vacated.

dt. 20.9.2007/aks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.