Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – Latest Updates
‘SCs/STs for open seats be treated as general’ Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates qualifying against open seats for promotion ca...
https://iskablogs.blogspot.com/2010/06/central-administrative-tribunal-cat.html
‘SCs/STs for open seats be treated as general’
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates qualifying against open seats for promotion cannot be adjusted against the vacancies earmarked for SC/ST quota, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held while giving relief to a Delhi Police woman constable.
“The official memorandum dated July 2, 1997 has to be applied for reservation to SC/ST category candidates who achieve merit of general category have to be deemed as general category candidates and this quota would not be counted towards reservation.
“If it is so, because of non-following of the aforesaid (memorandum) the fundamental right of the applicant to be considered as a SC category candidate fairly and equitably for promotion has been applied. The action of the respondents cannot be countenanced,” the Tribunal bench, comprising Members Shanker Raju and S P Singh, said.
The CAT passed the order on a petition of a woman constable Krishna Kumari seeking direction to the Delhi Government to consider her candidature for promotion to the post of Head Constable.
She submitted that she was eligible for consideration as she held eighth position against 15 vacancies earmarked for the category.
Accepting the plea of Kumari, the Tribunal said the government wrongly applied the instructions laid down in the official memorandum.
“In our considered view, the government has misapplied the instructions to fill up the quota of SC/ST from the candidates belonging to that respective category even if they have achieved the merit on a par with general category candidates,” the Tribunal said.
Earlier, the government contended that the vacancies meant for SC/ST have been utilised by those despite merit obtained by them at par with the general category.
While rejecting its contention, the Tribunal said, “The case of Kumari for promotion in promotion list A against SC quota on the basis of the selection of the year 1999 shall be considered and in the event she is otherwise qualified, consideration for promotion shall be accorded to her from the date juniors have been promoted.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC relief to woman officer in sexual harassment case
A woman Research Officer with the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine got relief from the Delhi High Court which has directed the government to constitute a “proper” committee to inquire into her accusation of sexual harassment by a senior colleague.
The woman officer, working in the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) under the Health Ministry, had contended that the sexual harassment committee appointed earlier by Department was headed by a person junior to the accused, which was against the law in this regard.
Aggrieved by non-compliance of guidelines laid down by the apex court in this regard by the Department, she had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which declined to direct the government to re-constitute the committee on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAT asks police not to punish till outcome of criminal trial
Disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to inflict penalty on a government employee in an offence before the outcome of the criminal trial, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.
The Tribunal passed the order on a petition by a Delhi Police constable challenging the order of the disciplinary authority to forfeit his two years of service on account of misconduct during the pendency of his case before a court.
The CAT, set aside the decision of the disciplinary authority, referred the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules to arrive at the conclusion that the decision to impose penalty was wrong.
“Rule 12 of Rules 1980, clearly mandates the disciplinary authority not to exercise the power to punish till the outcome of the criminal trial is not known and thereafter keeping in light the provisions and exceptions contained therein, a conscious decision to inflict penalty is the appropriate stage on which the disciplinary proceedings would come to an end, as provided under Rule 16,” it said.
The Tribunal pulled up the Delhi Police for holding the inquiry simultaneously with the criminal trial.
“What is not precluded to the Delhi Police is to hold an inquiry simultaneously with the criminal trial, which they have continued,” it said.
The trial court acquitted the constable on March 12, 2008, after the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offence.
“Disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to pass orders before outcome of the criminal trial, which is known only on March 12, 2008,” the Tribunal, comprising Members Veena Chhotray and Shanker Raju, said.
It also rapped the disciplinary authority for not considering the representation of constable Ramesh Kumar, who exercise the right of the alternate remedy by way of departmental appeal to the authorities after the outcome of the criminal trial.
“Having not taken cognisance of the representation preferred by the applicant and rejecting the same as not maintainable is certainly an act, which speaks volume about non-application of mind to the rules and law on the subject,” the Tribunal said
courtesy;cgen
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates qualifying against open seats for promotion cannot be adjusted against the vacancies earmarked for SC/ST quota, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held while giving relief to a Delhi Police woman constable.
“The official memorandum dated July 2, 1997 has to be applied for reservation to SC/ST category candidates who achieve merit of general category have to be deemed as general category candidates and this quota would not be counted towards reservation.
“If it is so, because of non-following of the aforesaid (memorandum) the fundamental right of the applicant to be considered as a SC category candidate fairly and equitably for promotion has been applied. The action of the respondents cannot be countenanced,” the Tribunal bench, comprising Members Shanker Raju and S P Singh, said.
The CAT passed the order on a petition of a woman constable Krishna Kumari seeking direction to the Delhi Government to consider her candidature for promotion to the post of Head Constable.
She submitted that she was eligible for consideration as she held eighth position against 15 vacancies earmarked for the category.
Accepting the plea of Kumari, the Tribunal said the government wrongly applied the instructions laid down in the official memorandum.
“In our considered view, the government has misapplied the instructions to fill up the quota of SC/ST from the candidates belonging to that respective category even if they have achieved the merit on a par with general category candidates,” the Tribunal said.
Earlier, the government contended that the vacancies meant for SC/ST have been utilised by those despite merit obtained by them at par with the general category.
While rejecting its contention, the Tribunal said, “The case of Kumari for promotion in promotion list A against SC quota on the basis of the selection of the year 1999 shall be considered and in the event she is otherwise qualified, consideration for promotion shall be accorded to her from the date juniors have been promoted.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC relief to woman officer in sexual harassment case
A woman Research Officer with the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine got relief from the Delhi High Court which has directed the government to constitute a “proper” committee to inquire into her accusation of sexual harassment by a senior colleague.
The woman officer, working in the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) under the Health Ministry, had contended that the sexual harassment committee appointed earlier by Department was headed by a person junior to the accused, which was against the law in this regard.
Aggrieved by non-compliance of guidelines laid down by the apex court in this regard by the Department, she had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which declined to direct the government to re-constitute the committee on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAT asks police not to punish till outcome of criminal trial
Disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to inflict penalty on a government employee in an offence before the outcome of the criminal trial, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.
The Tribunal passed the order on a petition by a Delhi Police constable challenging the order of the disciplinary authority to forfeit his two years of service on account of misconduct during the pendency of his case before a court.
The CAT, set aside the decision of the disciplinary authority, referred the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules to arrive at the conclusion that the decision to impose penalty was wrong.
“Rule 12 of Rules 1980, clearly mandates the disciplinary authority not to exercise the power to punish till the outcome of the criminal trial is not known and thereafter keeping in light the provisions and exceptions contained therein, a conscious decision to inflict penalty is the appropriate stage on which the disciplinary proceedings would come to an end, as provided under Rule 16,” it said.
The Tribunal pulled up the Delhi Police for holding the inquiry simultaneously with the criminal trial.
“What is not precluded to the Delhi Police is to hold an inquiry simultaneously with the criminal trial, which they have continued,” it said.
The trial court acquitted the constable on March 12, 2008, after the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offence.
“Disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to pass orders before outcome of the criminal trial, which is known only on March 12, 2008,” the Tribunal, comprising Members Veena Chhotray and Shanker Raju, said.
It also rapped the disciplinary authority for not considering the representation of constable Ramesh Kumar, who exercise the right of the alternate remedy by way of departmental appeal to the authorities after the outcome of the criminal trial.
“Having not taken cognisance of the representation preferred by the applicant and rejecting the same as not maintainable is certainly an act, which speaks volume about non-application of mind to the rules and law on the subject,” the Tribunal said
courtesy;cgen
.JPG)
