The main legal point established is the competence of the Chief General Manager to exercise powers of revision under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the retired Junior Telecom Officer- Jit Singh Sidhu, is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity the Tribunal) in T.A. No. 34/PB/2009 declining his prayer for quashing the order dated 28.4.2007 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Director (Human Resource Department), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and also upholding the order dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Chief General Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh. It is appropriate to mention that vide order dated 26.2.2004, the Chief General Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh has inflicted the penalty of withholding of increments for three years with cumulative effect after recording finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. He has proved to have joined hands with other officials during the period 22.9.1990 to 7.3.1991 and had indulged in the illegitimate and fraudulent exercise of recording fake and contrived subs. meter readings in the case of a large number of favoured subscribers of Moga Telephone Exchange so as to project recording of nominal calls in their cases on fortnightly basis. Accordingly, it resulted in actual under billing to the extent of around 1,21,000 units for the billing period ending on 15.1.1991 and 15.2.1991.

2. The Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Repeater Station Assistant in the department of Telecom on 8.9.1968. He qualified departmental examination for recruitment to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO). Accordingly, he was selected and appointed as such w.e.f. 7.12.1981. On 12.8.1993, he was served a charge memo under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity 1965 Rules). According to Article of charges, he joined hands with Shri Mangat Ram Bali, Selection Grade Telephone Operator to manipulate the reading of telephone subscribers meter reading in Moga Trunk Exchange. In the regular inquiry concluded on 1.8.1996 (Annexure P-2) charges levelled against him were not proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority under the Rules, namely, Deputy General Manager (Planning and Administration), Ferozepur Telecom District, vide order dated 7.10.1996 (Annexure P- 3) exonerated him. However, on 3.10.1997, Chief General Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle, went into detailed evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer and in purported exercise of his revisional authority as per Rule 29(1) (iii) (vi) of 1965 Rules, disagreed with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the consequential order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. A detailed reasoned order was recorded on 3.6.1997 (Annexure P4) and the same was duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner replied the aforesaid order. However, the revisional authority vide order dated 26.02.2004 did not find any substance in the reply sent by the petitioner and proceeded to inflict the punishment of withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect. He challenged the order dated 26.02.2004 (Annexure P6) before the Director (Human Resource Department), B.S.N.L. who also dismissed the appeal by upholding the view taken by the Chief General Manager.

3. Petitioner still felt aggrieved by the rejection of appeal at the hands of the Director (H.R.D.) and challenged the aforesaid order. The Tribunal vide order dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure P-11) has repelled the argument that the revisional authority could not have revised the order, passed by the disciplinary authority after expiry of period of six months under Rule 29 of 1965 Rules. The rationale for rejecting the aforesaid argument is that the competent authority did not have opportunity to exercise its authority in the absence of any knowledge about the action taken on the Enquiry Report by the Disciplinary Authority. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal reads thus :