CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 02 CAT CK 0125

Shri Nitish Sharma vs Union Of India

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 13 February 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Sh. Mohd. Jamshed, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 4291 Of 2013 With Original Application No. 4293 Of 2013, Original Application No. 4300 Of 2013, Original Application No. 4301 Of 2013

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

9 paragraphs · 432 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant was engaged in the office of Official Liquidator, as Company Paid Liquidation Assistant. In compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he was absorbed in the service of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as Junior Stenographer. The promotion from that post is to the post of Assistant. His seniority was fixed and his case was also considered by the DPC from time to time for promotion to the post of Assistant. However, he was declared unfit.

2.

The applicant filed OA No.4301/2013, challenging the seniority list dated 28.02.2005 for the post of Junior Stenographer. OA No.4300/2013 is filed challenging an order dated 19.08.2004 and for a direction to the respondents reinstate him into service, consequent upon certain disciplinary proceedings. The applicant was informed that as he has been reinstated in view of the directions issued by the Tribunal in an earlier OA filed by him, nothing is due to him.

OA No.4291/2013 is filed challenging the minutes of the DPC held on 07.05.2008 and 23.12.2010, in so far as his name was not recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant. OA No.4293/2013 is filed challenging the minutes of the meeting of the DPC held on 06.11.2012, for the same post.

3.

The applicant filed all the four cases in person. They were being listed from time to time. Since they are the oldest ones pending before the Tribunal, we made it clear that if the applicant does not turn up, the OA would be dismissed for default. There is no representation for the applicant today also.

4.

With a view to ensure that no injustice is caused to the applicant on account of his absence, we have perused the entire record.

5.

We heard Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel for the respondents.

6.

The applicant was absorbed in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, in compliance with the Scheme framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There again, his conduct was not up to the mark. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was reinstated only in compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal. His ACRs were also not up to the mark. The DPC which met on, as many as three occasions, found him not fit for promotion. It is fairly well settled that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the DPC.

7.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in all the four OAs and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.