9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the direction that the second respondent should be reinstated, particularly when though the matter had been adjourned to 09.06.2023 it had been taken up during the interregnum period on 26.04.2023 has to be interfered with by us and to that extent, we would give a further direction that such reinstatement shall be kept on hold and all issues can be agitated on 09.06.2023 in detail before the Central Administrative Tribunal. We are confident that Administrative Tribunal would be so doing on 09.06.2023. That portion of the order dated 27.04.2023 which directed reinstatement alone is interfered with by us since it was passed when the matter was originally listed on 09.06.2023. Such an order could have been passed on 09.06.2023 after hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore that, disciplinary action should be initiated by issuing a charge memo and further action should be initiated. The petitioner herein was not able to issue the charge memo within the period of 90 days. They complain that the second respondent evaded every attempt pleading medical illness. It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the period of suspension was extended to 180 days. 5. These issues were questioned before the Central Administrative Tribunal who had incidentally granted an order of interim stay, originally on 09.03.2023, which was then extended on 31.03.2023 till 21.04.2023. On 21.04.2023, it is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the stay was not extended. It is however contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been posted to 09.06.2023 for final adjudication of all issues including the reasons for suspension, the reason for non-framing of charges and for non-issuing charge memo within the stipulated period and the reason for extension of the period of suspension, passing such an interim order in M.A.No.266 of 2023 has seriously prejudiced the petitioner herein. 8. It is contended by Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel that stay was actually in force on 26.04.2023 and therefore the impugned order came to be passed. 9. These are issues which can only be examined by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 10. This Writ petition is a parallel proceeding and the relief of granting of stay of the suspension order or seeking explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
