High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 02 PAT CK 0007

Narsingh Paswan vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 11 February 2003 · Citation: (2003) 2 PLJR 278

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 1075 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 333 words
1.

This petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10 December, 2002. This order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is on O.A. No. 286 of 2002 upon a claim petition having been filed by Narsing Paswan against the Union of India and 11 others.

2.

But for the integrity certificate which has been withheld, the contention of the Petitioner is that he would receive an allocation to IAS cadre.

3.

The Tribunal has noticed three aspects on the claim petition of the Petitioner. These are (a) The Vigilance department of the State of Bihar has said that one of the charges against the Petitioner is that during his posting as an Executive Engineer in Jamshedpur, he was involved in misutilisation of funds meant for Rural Water Management and pay of the staff amounting to Rs. 40 lakh; (b) another charge of diversion of funds amounting to Rs. 9.37 lakh irregularly, and an inquiry into his acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of income is pending and (c) a charge of illegal appointment of 40 persons including his relations.

4.

Very strong reliance has been placed on a comment which has been recorded at the internal screening at its meeting on 31 August, 2001. As strong reliance has been placed which has a reference to the Petitioner (Narsing Paswan at serial No. 33) this is reproduced.

5.

By examining the order of the Tribunal which has been challenged and the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner it cannot be. contended with any amount of confidence that there is no vigilance matter pending against the Petitioner or that the Petitioner has a clean track of record so that this Court may certify that the Tribunal has been in error. The matters are still pending inquiry against the Petitioner.

6.

In the circumstances the Court can hardly certify that the Tribunal has committed an error in not interfering and granting reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner.

7.

Dismissed.