Allowed

Sarup Singh v. Central Administrative Trib. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2014CWP/8477/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the government's offer to substitute removal with compulsory retirement due to lack of willingness to settle. The Court remitted the matter for a fresh speaking order on punishment quantum and quashed the earlier non-speaking orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Writ petition allowed; Matter remitted to C.A.T. with directions to pass a speaking order.

Sarup Singh Vs Central Administrativ… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8477 of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 22.03.2014

Sarup Singh

…..Petitioner

versus

Central Administrative Tribunal and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for

¶10

Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6

¶12

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶13

On the last date of hearing, we had expressed our inclination to remit the m atter back for reconsideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal on account of there being no speaking order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since m ore than 15 years have elapsed and in order to put an end to the litigation, the petitioner would be satisfied if the punishment of removal from service is substituted with compulsory retirement. This was in the context of the nature of the punishment imposed on respondent No.5, who was guilty of similar charges.

¶14

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 sought time to obtain requisite instructions. As is the practice with the Government departm ents, who seldom express willingness to settle any dispute,

¶15

Chand Parkash 2014.03.22 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CW P- 8477 - 2004

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

despite a professed litigation policy of resolving the disputes, the usual answer comes that the Governm ent is not interested in settling the dispute. The ostensible reason given is that the petitioner does not complete the minimum years of service.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid situation, the only other course of action left is to follow the line which we proposed to do on the last date of hearing, i.e., to remit the matter back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for the Tribunal to pass a speaking order dealing with the issues raised by the petitioner including qua the quantum of punishment.

¶20

Ordered accordingly.

¶21

The im pugned order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2002 is accordingly quashed as well as the order on review application dated 9.3.2004 and the writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶22

The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 22.04.2014. Keeping in mind that the O.A. is of vintage 2002, the Tribunal will endeavour to conclude the hearing as soon as possible.

¶23

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE 22.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶24

Chand Parkash 2014.03.22 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sarup Singh v. Central Administrative Trib. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarup Singh v. Central Administrative Trib. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sat Pal Vs Raj Kumari and Others

Gurjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Manav Nirman Samiti (Regd Society) & Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Rakesh Grover Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Ved Parkash & Company & Ors. Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal I Chd & Ors.

Jagdish and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others