Dismissed

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Ors. v. B.C. Joshi

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2014CW/6008/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction that disciplinary authorities failed to apply their mind to the respondent's defence, violating natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed but the appellants were directed to comply with the CAT orders within three months, staying the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, but the appellants are directed to comply with the CAT orders within three months. The contempt petition is stayed for three months.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6008/2014

¶5

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. B.C. Joshi

¶6

DATE OF ORDER ::: 01.09.2014

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶9

Mr. B.L. Mahatma (S.D.E.), Legal, BSNL present in person for petitioners

¶10

Mr. B.C. Joshi, respondent present in person

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

The respondent, holding the post of S.D.O. Phones, Banswara, was under transfer to G.M.T.D., Ajmer and further transfer to M.P. Telecom Circle, was served with a charge sheet with the allegation that while he was working as JTO (T) Bhilwara during the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, he had committed some irregularities in the supervision of the work of laying down telephone lines. It is alleged that certain cable laying works were got done through contractors, for which the respondent was required to carry out 100% check of the same as per the rules in force. On a complaint made on 2.3.2001, a vigilance inquiry was ordered for physical assessment of work. A sample check for assessing the verification of work was carried out, on which notices were issued to the respondent

¶13

¶14

on 3.8.2001 and 8.8.2001 to submit his explanation. After considering his explanation, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide memo dated 17.8.2004 on which a departmental enquiry was initiated.

¶15

The respondent submitted a reply and also participated in the departmental enquiry in which he was permitted to lead evidence his defence. The Enquiry Officer found the charges No.1 to 3 established, against which the respondent made a representation. A punishment order was passed imposing penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year and further a direction was given that he will earn increment during the period of reduction which shall have effect of postponing his further increments. An appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

¶16

The Central Administrative Tribunal, after going through the record and orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, found that the punishment order is not speaking order; it was passed in mechanical manner accepting the report of the enquiry officer. After discussing the allegations and the defence of the applicant to the charges, the Tribunal found that the averments made in the representation of the applicant were not discussed and considered in comprehensive and reasoned manner. Only a reference was made to the effect that I.O. has already

¶17

¶18

considered the points. The Tribunal found that the Appellant Authority also did not consider the case elaborately. Although Appellate Authority tried to discuss some of the points, but the defence taken by the respondent was not considered in detail. After setting aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders after considering the objections raised by the respondent in his representation dated 26.2.2008. The Disciplinary Authority was required to complete the entire process within two months.

¶19

A contempt petition was filed with the complaint that the order passed by the Tribunal has not been complied with.

¶20

We have gone through the record and do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶21

We have perused the orders and find that though the delinquent officer had submitted a detailed representation against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority did not take into consideration any of the points raised in the representation. The Disciplinary Authority has simply relied upon the findings of the enquiry officer and passed the punishment order mechanically without applying its mind to the representation made by the respondent-applicant.

¶22

The Chief General Manager, Telecom dismissed the

¶23

¶24

representation after discussing the proceedings of the enquiry. He also did not discuss nor has recorded his opinion on the defence of the delinquent officer. The observations of the Disciplinary Authority in paragraphs No.4 and 5 read as under:-

¶25

“4. The charge officer has submitted his reply dated 26.02.2008 for the said memo. It is observed that most of the points raised by the charged officer in his representation have already been taken into consideration by the IO during the inquiry proceedings and no new facts has been submitted by the charged officer in his reply. Thus, reply submitted by the charged officer is not found convincing.

¶26

Taking into account the findings of the Inquiry Authority, reply of the charged officer, records of the case and on an objective assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, I, G.K. Agarwal CGMT Rajasthan Telecom Circle hereby impose the penalty of reduction by Two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with immediate effect on Shri B.C. Joshi, SDE. He will not earn increments of his pay during the period of such reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.”

¶27

In appeal, the Appellate Authority committed the same mistake with regard to the defence of the Delinquent Officer.

¶28

¶29

The findings recorded by the Director (HR) & Appellate Authority, BSNL, New Delhi, as quoted below, fails to meet the principles of natural justice in considering the defence of the respondent as well as ground that the Disciplinary Authority did not record its own conclusion for arriving at the finding of guilty in awarding punishment:-

¶30

“The submissions of appellant that reasonable opportunity was not afforded is not tenable, as full natural justice, reasonable opportunity has been provided to the appellant during the course of inquiry as well as before awarding the punishment order as per the prescribed rules and procedure. As per inquiry Report, I.O. has given full opportunity by allowing witnesses and documents during course of inquiry.

¶31

The disciplinary authority gave due cognizance to the finding of the inquiry officer, reply of the charged officer, records and overall circumstances of the case in its entirety and after arriving at a definite conclusion, awarded the punishment.

¶32

On assessment of averall records and findings of the case, it was established that there was supervisory negligence & lack of devotion to the duty on the part of Shri B.C. Joshi, the then JTO (T) Bhilwara during 1998-99, 1999-2000. Moreover appellant has not brought any new fact in his favour to refute the charges.

¶33

Therefore, taking into account the records of the case, findings of Inquiry

¶34

¶35

Authority and on an objective assessment of the facts and overall circumstances of the case in its entirety, I, Gopal Das, Director (HR), BSNL, New Delhi, hereby reject the appeal dated 01/04/2009 preferred by Sh. B.C. Joshi, SDE, O/o GMTD Banswara, Rajasthan Telecom Circle Jaipur.

¶36

The orders be acknowledged by Shri B.C. Joshi, SDE, O/o GMTD Banswara, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Jaipur.

¶37

(Gopal Das) Director (HR) & Appellate Authority, BSNL, New Delhi”

¶38

In the present case, the orders passed by the enquiry officer as well as the Appellate Authority suffer from total nonapplication of mind with regard to the reasons in recording the finding of guilt and further in imposing the penalty.

¶39

The writ petition is dismissed with observations that the appellants will comply with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of three months from today.

¶40

In view of above, the proceedings of contempt petition filed by the respondent shall remain stayed for a period of three months.

¶41

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI), ACTING CJ.

¶42

babulal 9

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Ors. v. B.C. Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Ors. v. B.C. Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Moti Lal

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Kanhaiya Lal and Ors.

Om Prakash Bhadu and Anr. Vs State Urban Deve. and Ors.

Ruchika Kansara Vs Smt. Prabha Sharma

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Ors. Vs V.K. Agarwal

Union of India and Ors. Vs Narpat Singh Mes 169520