AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application has been filed on 10.03.2016 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) It be declared that action of the respondents in including name of the applicant in the 'agreed list of suspected officers' for the year 2014-15 as well to continue name of the applicant in the 'agreed list of officers' for a further one year i.e. 2015-16 is illegal.
ii) It be directed to the respondents to delete name of the applicant from 'agreed list of officers' forthwith and further respondents be restrained from continuing name of the applicant in the 'agreed list of officer for any further period in any manner.
iii) the impugned communication dated 11/11/2014 and 23/09/2015(Annexure 1 to 2) be quashed and set aside being illegal one.
iv) Any other relief this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the Applicant in the interest of justice."
The applicant was included in the 'Agreed List' of respondents for the year 2014-15 and further in 2015-16 without holding an enquiry into an alleged complaint against the applicant. As a result, he was debarred from being nominated to Selection Committees and Tender Committees and also to be appointed as Arbitrator or Enquiry Officer. The applicant states that he received a communication on 01.11.2014 stating that his name had been included in the 'Agreed List of suspected Gazetted Officers' and a further communication on 23.09.2015 that his name was continued in the 'Agreed List' for the year 2015-16. The applicant made several representations to the respondents and also under RTI seeking information on the charges levelled against him. He states that Clause 8 of the OM No. 130/1/66-AVD dt. 05.05.1966 specifies that the 'Agreed List' will be valid for one year from date of preparation and at the end of that period, those officers against whom there is not sufficient evidence to proceed, are deleted from the list. He also states that the CVC in Office order No. 000/VGL/18 10.08.2004 had prescribed strict time schedules for conducting investigation and departmental enquiry. However, the applicant's name continues up to date of application to remain in the 'Agreed List'.
No reply was filed by the respondents despite notice given to them on 01.04.2016 and costs were imposed during the hearing held on 28.11.2018. It was also noted that neither applicant nor his counsel had been present for several past hearings. Learned counsel for the respondents came late to Court and represented that the applicant had advised that he was withdrawing the OA. Accordingly, they have filed Pursis enclosing a letter from the applicant to the Senior Deputy General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai No. SKS/CONF/01/2016 dt. 22.05.2016 stating as follows:
-----------------------------------------
Confidential
SKS/CONF/01/2016 Date 22.02.2016
To
The Senior Deputy General Manager
Central Railway, CST Mumbai.
Sub-Withdrawal of Original Application
No. 2095/2016 before Honourable
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
Respected Sir,
With reference to above subject undersigned had filed an application for remedy against inclusion of my name in the Agreed List in the financial year 2014-45 and 2015-16 before Honourable Tribunal.
Now, I propose to withdraw my original application No. 2095/2016 from Honourable Tribunal when it opens after summer vacation and likely date is 13 June 2016.
sd/-
Satyendra Kumar
SRDEE/TRO/NGP
------------------------------------------
In the circumstances stated above, this OA is dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution without any order as to costs. The costs imposed on the respondents during the hearing are also withdrawn.