2008 (11) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NT The judgment of the court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. - The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 1st April, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1914 of 2007. 2. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the Petitioner has challenged a charge sheet issued to him by his principal employer, that is, Respondent No.2. the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parent department about the conduct of the Petitioner. On an overall consideration of the matter, the CBDT issued a memorandum of charges to the Petitioner on 22^nd December, 2006. Along with the charge sheet, the Petitioner was also served the opinion dated 17^th May, 2006 expressed by the Central Vigilance Commission. 5. The Petitioner challenged the charge sheet issued to him before the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued to an employee, the departmental proceedings ought to continue and should not be interdicted unless there are very good reasons to do so. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner obviously could not challenge the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. V. Upender Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and Air India Ltd. v. M. Yogeshwar Raj, 2000 SCC (LandS) 710.  The sum and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibutable to NAFED and its authorities. There is nothing to suggest, nor has it been argued before us, that anyone in the CBDT acted in a mala fide manner against the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult for us to hold that because the officers of NAFED had acted in a mala fide manner and had allegedly harassed and victimized the Petitioner, for that reason the CBDT could not....