Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters of law.

1. Writ Petition No.3236 of 2007 is filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2006 in Original Application No.257 of 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), whereunder and whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application.

The Original Application was filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.8/149/2003-Vig.II, dated 07.12.2005 of the first respondent, by virtue of which pay of the petitioner was reduced by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with a further direction that the petitioner will earn increments of pay during the period of said reduction and on expiry of such period, reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments also.

2. Writ Petition No.25188 of 2013 is filed challenging the order dated 12.07.2013 in Original Application No.404 of 2011 passed by the Tribunal, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application.

The Original Application was filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not restoring the scale of pay of the petitioner to its original position on expiry of three years of currency of punishment pursuant to the order dated 07.12.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to restore the pay scale of the petitioner to its original position with effect from January, 2009 and based on the same direct the respondents to extend all benefits of revision of pay scale in favour of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, increments and all other service benefits.

3. Since both the Writ Petitions are connected, they are being disposed of, by this Common Order at the request of both the parties.

4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petitions may be stated as follows:

The petitioner was posted as Telecom District Manager (for short, TDM), Srikakulam and she worked in that capacity from 21.08.1998 to 17.02.2002. In the process of road laying/expansion, there was likelihood of good cable line getting damaged or atleast the joints losing efficiency thereby leading to heavy expenses incurred on jointing. The fault detection mechanism had suffered serious change with the development of the technology. The result of such development was the Cable Fault Locators (for short, CFLs) and Low Insulation Fault Locators (for short, LIFLs). The petitioner felt necessary to acquire these equipments to Srikakulam and she was made to believe that the said instrument along with its accessories was proprietary items and consequently there was no necessity for normal procedure of obtaining tenders, etc. The only safeguard which was liable to be taken was to ensure that the prices for these products are not at variance when compared to the prices at which they were procured by other telecom districts.

The petitioner ensured that pricing is the same for these instruments and as such placed orders on the firm which was dealing with them.

As per the delegation of financial powers, a TDM has power to sanction and procure items from non-public sector undertakings for a value not more than Rs.2.00 lakhs per each occasion. The prices of the products purchased were ranging from Rs.1,90,000/- to Rs.1,99,000/-. Therefore, the purchases that were made by the petitioner were within her financial limits. These items were procured only when there was a demand from the Divisional Offices and her action cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the Department. As many as 11 sub-divisions expressed their need for procurement of such instruments in view of the frequent complaints from the customers and there was progress of National Highway expansion. At the behest of some anonymous complaint, an explanation was called for, to explain her action for procuring certain instruments. A proper explanation was given by her on 21.8.2001. She highlighted that the purchases except on one or two occasions, were made