Central Administrative Tribunal

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties is fully empowered to institute proceedings and issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties. The final order, however, must be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, R. Shankarappa, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications who retired in 2018. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the CBI in two cases: one for demanding and accepting a bribe, and another for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was convicted in both cases, but the High Court later stayed the conviction and sentence, with the criminal appeals remaining pending. Paralle...

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that the appellant (a 1976 appointee) was validly redesignated from Junior Field Officer (Group B) to Carpet Training Officer (Group C) in 1978, and subsequent regularization in 2006 as CTO didn't entitle him to Handicrafts Promotion Officer status or its promotion channel. The Court ruled that cadre classification and scheme-specific redesignation were within the government's administrative discretion, and the appellant's acceptance of earlier CAT orders (without challenging the CTO designation) precluded belated claims for HPO benefits under Article 14 Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rampat Azad, was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO - Group B) in 1976 at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Varanasi, under the All-India Handicr...

Tag: Central Administrative Tribunal

Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets

Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years