Central Administrative Tribunal
KAILASH CHANDER vs M/O RAILWAYS on 28 December 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
…
ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. 060/01562/2018
Chandigarh, this the 28th day of December, 2018
…
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
…
Kailash Chander son of Sh. Mehar Chand, age 53 years, working as Office Superintendent, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Ambala, Haryana 133001 (Group-C).
.…APPLICANT
( By Advocate: Shri D.R.Sharma)
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Northern Railway, Ambala, Haryana -133001.
3. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Haryana 133001.
.…RESPONDENTS
ORDER (oral) SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
By means of present Original Application (O.A.) the applicant has assailed orders dated 3.12.2018 and 22.11.2018, passed on the basis of penalty imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 24.10.2013 by which the respondents have started making recovery from the applicant.
2. Heard Shri D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, who very fairly submitted that against the order of penalty the applicant has filed a revision petition, which is pending adjudication before the revisional authority and the pending adjudication the same the respondents have started making recovery with retrospective effect in pursuance of impugned order dated 24.10.2013 which is liable to be set aside.
3. Considering the fact that the revision petition is pending adjudication before the Competent Authority, in which the applicant has impugned the order inflicting the punishment in pursuance to which the respondents have started making recovery, I am of the considered view that the applicant is at liberty to make an application before the Revisional Authority by taking all the pleas taken before this Tribunal to hold the impugned order of recovery in abeyance till his revision petition is decided. If such application is filed in pending petition, the revisional authority is directed to consider stay application in accordance to law. The O.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (J)
Dated: 28.12.2018 `SK’