CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH : BANGALORE
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION No.151/2010
TODAY,
THIS THE DAY OF
................. , 2011
HON'BLE
SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE
SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
D.C. Jayanath,
S/o D. Chinnappa,
Aged 42 years,
Working as Skilled Worker Gr.II,
MSME Development Institute,
Rajajinagar Industrial Estate,
Bangalore – 560 010. .... Applicant
(By
Advocate Shri A.R. Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By
Secretary,
Ministry
of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
Nirman
Bhavan,
New Delhi
– 110 108.
2. The Development Commissioner,
Micro,
Small & Medium Enterprises,
7th
Floor, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi
– 110 108.
3. The Director,
MSME –
Development Institute,
Opp:
Konkan Railway Station,
Quepem
Road, Margao,
Goa – 403
601.
4. The Director,
MSME –
Development Institute,
Rajajinagar Industrial Estate,
Bangalore
– 560 010. ... Respondents
(By
Advocate Shri M. V. Rao, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)
- 2
-
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This OA is filed on 22.3.2010 on the ground that a major
pealty has been imposed for alleged misconduct without giving an opportunity of
being heard as required under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. The applicant is working as a Skilled
Worker Gr.II in the MSME Development Institute, Bangalore, under the Ministry
of MSME. The facts as stated in the OA
is that in the year 2000, when he was working in Goa under the Respondent No.3,
he was issed a memo dated 29.6.2000 for the reasons of non performance of work
in the assigned time. The applicant
submitted his explanation which was held as unsatisfactory and another memo
dated 18.7.2000 was issued for which once again, a detailed explanation was submitted on
1.8.2000. Thereafter, a 3rd
memo was issued for which also an explanation was submitted on 11.10.2000 and
he was once again that the reply was not found acceptable. After all this, the Respondent No.3 issued
order dated 22.11.2000 imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment with
cumulative effect. The applicant claims
to have preferred an appeal on 1.1.2001, a copy of which is produced as
Annexure-A/10. This is addressed to the
Development Commissioner, SISI, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, i.e., Respondent No.2
and it bears a remark stating "received/signature/31.1.2001" and the
name of the signatory is clearly written as Mrs. P. Chimulkar, Steno. The copy suggest that it was submitted
through the Director, SISI, Magao, Goa.
However, it does not suggest that any copy was given to the Director,
SISI, Goa.
- 3 -
3. The respondents, in their reply
statement have denied receipt of any appeal
4. The applicant further submits that he
did not pursue his appeal for being scared of possible adverse
consequences. He was transferred to
Bangalore on 21.5.2001 and got his present grade of Skilled Worker Gr.II with
effect from 11.10.2006. Thereafter, he
started making representations from 4.1.2007 onwards raising the question of
his pending appeal and requested for restoration of his increment.
5. It is seen from Annexure-A/18 that
between January, 2007 to March, 2008, the applicant had made 8 such
representations which the Bangalore office has forwarded to the Delhi
office. However, from all these and also
from Annexure-A/12, specifically it can be seen that between 21.5.2001 to 2007,
he has himself remained quiet and not pursued the appeal if at all it is to be
understood as having been properly given.
6. In view of this delay of more than 6
years, we see no merit in the OA.
Accordingly, dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(V. AJAY
KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER
(J) MEMBER (A)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment