Sunday, October 16, 2011

NO.408/2007 -oral --on 30-11-2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.408/2007

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)

Mr.H.P.Nagaralkar,
S/o Punjdaji,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant General Manager,
BSNL (Telecom),
Bangalore. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri HKS Holla)


Vs.

1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Information & Technology,
Department of Telecommunications,
Room No.915 Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore – 560 008. ...Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.Y.Guruprakash for Respondent-1 and Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondent-2)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

In this case which was originally filed on 20.9.2007 the applicant has challenged the impugned order at Annexure A13 dated 7.8.2006. This order was passed in the name of President of India who is the Disciplinary Authority in this case. It appears from the reply statement filed by the Respondent-1 that subsequent to the impugned order another order was passed on 15.11.2007 as at Annexure R1 which arise out of the representation made by the applicant to the Hon'ble President and the said order dated 15.11.2007 is in answer to the
- 2-
representation. This order dated 15.11.2007 has been considered as a review petition to the Hon'ble President under Rule 29(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and hence has the status of a superior order to that of the impugned order.

2 It appears from the record that the applicant has not challenged this order of the President dated 15.11.2007 but has restricted his application only to the first order i.e., at Annexure A13. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that the review order of the President dated 15.11.2007 has come to be passed only after filing of the application in the present case. Further after receiving the reply statement he should have amended the OA which has not been done so far till the date of hearing.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for applicant for some time, before this point came to the notice and after having noticed it, we feel it appropriate and just to dismiss the application as it does not challenge the review order of the President. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that he should be permitted to approach this Tribunal again by way of another application to set aside both the orders, which is allowed subject to the relevant rules. The application is accordingly dismissed.



(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment