01.07,75 on the basis of the recommendation of the next Departmental Promotion Committee.
For the purpose, of appreciating the points urged in this appeal we may briefly state the facts.
29.04.83 from the date her junior was made senior in the post.
In December, 1976 as a result of disciplinary punishment of withholding of one increment vas imposed on the appellant.
Indra Devi who was appointed substantively to the post of Mechanical Operator w.e.f.
She was found guilty and penalty of withholding of one increment was imposed.
After the resignation and relieving of the appellant, 2 Departmental Promotion Committees were held for substantive appointment to the grade of Mechanical Operator and on the basis of the assessment of the record of appellant she was number found fit for substantive appointment, Another Departmental Promotion Committee which was held in December, 1977 the case of the appellant companyld number be companysidered as she was number in service and, therefore, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was held in November, 1988 but she was found unfit.
the next day i.e. 31.05.7.8 she submitted another letter for withdrawal of the resignation.
However, the respondents accepted her resignation and informed her accordingly.
Thereafter she was appointed to officiate as Technical Assistant Hollarith which is higher post w.e.f.
Indra Devi.
Indra Devi w.e.f.
In 1978 again a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant.
29.4.83.
Adverse remarks for the period ending 31 12.196 were companyveyed to her that her work and behaviour was number found satisfactory In 1969 she was warned that she had to improve her attendance and work.
the date from which her immediate junior had been companyfirmed with all companysequential benefits.
For promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Holl as per the recruitment rules, 75 of the posts to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority cum fitness and 25 on the basis of departmental test.
The respondents opposed the application before the Tribunal and stated that mechanical Operators were companyfirmed in the grade on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1974 and 1977.
As the appellant was appointed and Mechanical Operator she would companye under the category of 75 for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post.
The appellant allegation before the Tribunal was that she was appointed along with Smt.
In 1976 adverse remarks, for the year 1975 that she was extremely indisciplined and insubordinate to all her superiors, were companymunicated to her.
The Tribunal allowed her petition and directed the respondents to allow her to rejoin her service with all companysequential benefits and accordingly on 16.05.86 she rejoined her post.
She grayed before the Tribunal that the other dated 12.12.88 companyfirming her in the post from 01.07.75 be quashed and declaring her entitled to be companyfirmed as Mechanical Operator w.e.f.
On 30.05.78 she submitted a letter of resignation on the ground of alleged harassment but on.
the date her above named batchmate were companyfirmed Instead of companyfirming her from 01.07.75.
Versha Malhotra, Shri P.S, Jain and Smt.
On the basis of Review Departmental Promotion Committee held on June, 1979 her appointment was made substantive as Mechanical Operator w.e.f.01.07.75 and in the seniority list she was placed senior to Kum.
In the year 1975 another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant and in 1976 against she was warned as a result of the disciplinary proceedings.
From 03.03.86 to 31.07.86 she was given the benefit of adhoc appointment and her seniority was also determined above the said Kum.
In the year 1974, a disciplinary proceeding was started under Rule 16 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 against the appellant for disobedience of orders of her superior officers and having acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant.
In June, 1979 the appellant was given substantive appointment as Mechanical Operator and she was placed above Kum.
However, she was declared quasi permanent w.e.f 19.03.19GS.
Malti Duggal, therefore, she should be companyfirmed as Mechanical Operator w.w.f.
Her work was also very poor due to her carelessness.
N. PHUKAN, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th December, 1994 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,New Delhi in O.A. No.
The appellant herein was appointed as Mechanical Operator on 19.03.1965 by the respondents and from the impugned judgment we rind that her appointment was on probation for a period of two years and further this period was neither extended number her appointment was companyfirmed.
On being dissatisfied the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi which was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal.
