9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2006. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The appellant Anil Mishra was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging the adverse entry made to him for the year 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002. 5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected by the Chief Commissioner, and his further representation to the Central Government was also rejected. Hence the Tribunal rejected the OA of the appellant. 6. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court noted that the plea of bias had been considered by the Tribunal after an examination of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered and dismissed. Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. We cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited as has been repeatedly held by this Court, vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal or the High Court. Even if the entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal or the High Court for summoning of these entries, and the Tribunal and the High Court could have summoned the same. However, the appellant filed no such application before the Tribunal for summoning these entries. Hence the appellant has himse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
