DEHRADUN: The Nainital bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) comprising judicial member Manish Garg and administrative member Chhabilendra Roul has directed the registry to place the cases before the chairman to take an appropriate call to assign the case of IFS officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi vs Central government to another bench.
While passing the order the division bench remarked, “We also make it clear that we are performing our official duty having no personal interest to hear matters pertaining to the present applicant (IFS, Chaturvedi).”
Chaturvedi has moved the CAT for summoning his appraisal as recorded by Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) headed by Prime Minister and copy of 360-degree appraisal rules on basis of which his empanelment to work at joint secretary level was not approved by the Centre.
“On the final hearing of the case, the CAT bench, without any reason, in the written order described my client’s conduct as ‘highly deprecated’. We requested that the case be heard by some other bench,” said Chaturvedi’s lawyer Shashank Pandey.
Pandey further said on the final hearing of the case on August 25, the bench declined to conduct a final hearing saying that the transfer petition of the case is pending with the CAT chairman and the matter was listed for final hearing on October 16.
“When order was uploaded, we were shocked to find the bench’s remark. Chaturvedi has given a statement to the chairman that his case be kept on hold till the transfer petition is decided. On the other hand, the applicant is insisting on disposal of the case. This conduct is highly deprecated,” Pandey said, adding that it is very evident that the above para was deliberately inserted post-passing of the order resulting in harm and undermining the reputation of my client.
Chaturvedi, in his request to shift his case, categorically submitted that at no stage he had ever made any such statement before the chairman. On the contrary, he has filed four applications for immediate disposal of his case.
In support of this matter, he submitted information sought through RTI from the chief public information officer of CAT, which revealed that there was no document on record that could substantiate the finding recorded in the August 25 order.
Further, to bring fairness and transparency in the hearing and to prevent a repeat of such defamation in the future, Chaturvedi also requested an audio-video recording of all the proceedings in the future.
While passing the order the division bench remarked, “We also make it clear that we are performing our official duty having no personal interest to hear matters pertaining to the present applicant (IFS, Chaturvedi).”
Chaturvedi has moved the CAT for summoning his appraisal as recorded by Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) headed by Prime Minister and copy of 360-degree appraisal rules on basis of which his empanelment to work at joint secretary level was not approved by the Centre.
“On the final hearing of the case, the CAT bench, without any reason, in the written order described my client’s conduct as ‘highly deprecated’. We requested that the case be heard by some other bench,” said Chaturvedi’s lawyer Shashank Pandey.
Pandey further said on the final hearing of the case on August 25, the bench declined to conduct a final hearing saying that the transfer petition of the case is pending with the CAT chairman and the matter was listed for final hearing on October 16.
“When order was uploaded, we were shocked to find the bench’s remark. Chaturvedi has given a statement to the chairman that his case be kept on hold till the transfer petition is decided. On the other hand, the applicant is insisting on disposal of the case. This conduct is highly deprecated,” Pandey said, adding that it is very evident that the above para was deliberately inserted post-passing of the order resulting in harm and undermining the reputation of my client.
Chaturvedi, in his request to shift his case, categorically submitted that at no stage he had ever made any such statement before the chairman. On the contrary, he has filed four applications for immediate disposal of his case.
In support of this matter, he submitted information sought through RTI from the chief public information officer of CAT, which revealed that there was no document on record that could substantiate the finding recorded in the August 25 order.
Further, to bring fairness and transparency in the hearing and to prevent a repeat of such defamation in the future, Chaturvedi also requested an audio-video recording of all the proceedings in the future.
