Dismissed

The Chief Gen.Manager, Mtnl and Anr. v. D.C.Das

Bombay HC13 Mar 2013WP/228/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the C.A.T.'s order allowing a retired official's suspension application. The High Court found no jurisdictional error in the C.A.T.'s fact-finding on when the order was received and dismissed the petition, directing expedient merits hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Rule discharged. C.A.T. directed to decide merits of O.A. within six months.

The Chief Gen.Manager, Mtnl and Anr. Vs D.C.Das — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

Dusane

WP228.2002.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2002

¶6

The Chief General MTNL & Anr. ... Petitioners

¶7

Vs. D.C. Das ... Respondent

¶8

Mrs. S.I. Shah for the appellant. Mr. Abdulrajjak I. Bhatkar for respondent.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶11

SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2013

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The Petitioner-The Chief General Manager, MTNL and others have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.139 of 2001.

¶16

Dusane 2 WP228.2002.sxw

¶17

The C.A.T., Mumbai Bench by it's judgment and order dated 21^st August, 2001 was pleased to allow the original application filed by the respondent herein challenging the order of suspension issued by the petitioners herein dated 29^th January, 2001 and was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 29^th January, 2001 and also order dated 30^th January, 2001 withholding the retirement benefits of the applicant. Liberty, however was granted by the Tribunal to continue the disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶18

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

¶19

The respondent was working with the Department of Telecommunication at Mumbai. An order of suspension was issued by the petitioner herein dated 29^th January, 2001 placing him under suspension. According to the respondent, this order was received by him on 1^st February, 2001 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31^st January, 2001. On the other hand, it is contended that by the D.O.T. that order of suspension had taken effect on 29^th January, 2001 itself and

¶20

Dusane 3 WP228.2002.sxw

¶21

in any case, the said order was pasted at his residence on 31^st January, 2001, prior to his retirement. The respondent before the C.A.T. contended that in view of Rule 19 of P. & T. Manual an order of suspension under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 takes effect from the date on which it is made and cannot be given effect to from a back date. However, in the case where the officer, who is to be suspended is stationed outside the Headquarters of the Competent Authority, the order cannot take effect from the date of the issue of the said order. The C.A.T. accepted the said contention and recorded finding of fact that said order was received by him only on 1^st January, 2001 and therefore, allowed the original application. We are informed that pursuant to liberty granted by the C.A.T., the M.T.N.L. had initiated departmental proceedings and the said matter is now pending before the C.A.T. vide O.A. No. 227 of 2008.

¶22

After having heard both the counsel at length, we are

¶23

of the view that no case is made out for interfering in the judgment and order passed by the C.A.T., while exercising our

¶24

Dusane 4 WP228.2002.sxw

¶25

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, since in our view, there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity committed by the C.A.T. The C.A.T. has come to the conclusion and has recorded finding of fact that the suspension order was received by the respondent on 1^st February, 2001. We are, therefore, not inclined to substitute the view taken by the C.A.T. on this aspect. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶26

We however, clarify that the C.A.T. shall not be influenced by the fact that order of suspension was set aside either by the C.A.T. or confirmed by this court and shall independently decide the O.A. on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of six months from today.

¶27

[Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.] [V. M. KANADE. J.]

The Chief Gen.Manager, Mtnl and Anr. v. D.C.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Gen.Manager, Mtnl and Anr. v. D.C.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil Bharatiya Safai Majdoor Congress, through President, Satish v. Lalbige Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mrs. Sandhya Manohar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Prot. and or

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Principal Secretary, Home Dept (Transport) and Ors.

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj and Ors.

Mrs. Nilam Shivaji Powar Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj and Ors.

Mr. Dinar Dilip Pange Vs Mrs. Harshala Dinar Pange