Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order holding that censure is not a bar to promotion. The Bench upheld the Tribunal view, dismissing the writ petition as the punishment lacks currency for a specific period.
Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending to be closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.15040 of 2005
ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal holding that
censure is not a bar for promotion, the Union of India has come up with the present writ petition.
Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondent.
judgment of another Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Ernakulam reported in 2004 (3) ATJ 518 were relied upon by the Tribunal.
2
VRS,J & GSP,J
W.P.No.15040 of 2005
Therefore, the view of the Tribunal is correct and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
__________________
G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
Date: 02-11-2016
Ksn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether censure as a penalty acts as a bar to an employee's eligibility for promotion.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly held that censure has no currency for a particular period.
Whether the Union of India's challenge to the Tribunal's order on promotion eligibility has merit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
1st Respondent
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
G. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
