Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12508/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12508 of 2010
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SUKVEER
SINGH PARSURAM PUNIA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAVI KARNAVAT for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 13/10/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
This
petition is preferred to challenge the order dated 6.11.2009 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in
OA No.181 of 2005. The said OA was preferred by the present
respondent seeking quashment of the adverse remarks communicated for
the period ending 31.3.2003 by communication dated 16.4.2004 and
grant of consequential benefits including promotion and all benefits
of ACP Scheme from retrospective date with 18% interest.
2. The
facts in narrow compass are that the petitioner reduced the
respondent to a lower pay-scale after holding a departmental inquiry.
While taking the decision, reliance was placed on the adverse remarks
in the confidential reports. The case of the respondent was that
those remarks were never communicated to him. This factum was not
controverted by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
Affidavit-in-reply before the Tribunal also does not appear to
contain any such averment. The Tribunal, therefore, hold that the
proceedings were vitiated and, therefore, allowed the Original
Application. The Union of India has, therefore, preferred this
petition.
3. Learned
advocate Mr Karnavat for Union of India was not in a position to
indicate from the record that the adverse remarks which were relied
upon were communicated to the respondent and, therefore, in our
opinion, no error can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal,
which would call for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
4. The
petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(M.D.
SHAH, J.)
zgs/-
Top