Menon, J. -- 1. Calling in question tenability of an order dated 17th November 2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No.857/2005 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner challenging an order of punishment imposed upon him vide Annexure P-1 on 26th August 2005; whereby, his pay was reduced by one stage for a period of one year with non-cumulative effect with a further direction that it shall not have any adverse effect on his pension, this appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Facts in brief, which are relevant for deciding the controversy in question goes to show that the petitioner Shri S.D. Bind was working as Telecom District Manager and at the relevant time when the cause of action accrued in the year 2003, he was posted in District Satna (M.P.). It seems that a notice inviting tender was issued by the office of Telecom District Manager, Satna for the purpose of laying of underground cable in the jurisdiction of Satna Telecom District. Various guidelines were circulated for issuance of the tender.

3. After the work was allotted, making allegation of violation of guidelines and irregularities in award of work a writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ Petition No.2176/2002 (Kamlendra Singh v. B.S.N.L. and others). The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and by a detailed order passed on 20th August 2002, vide Annexure P-4, the learned Single Bench found that various guidelines in the matter of award of contract was not followed. The officers of the BSNL have committed various illegalities and defaults and accordingly petition was allowed and it was directed that a cost of Rs.5000/- be recovered from the officer, viz., the present petitioner.

4. The order passed by the learned writ Court was challenged in L.P.A. No.612/2002 and learned Division Bench of this Court reconsidered the entire matter and vide judgment dated 2.4.2004 (Annexure P-5) disposed of the matter in the following manner :

“8. When the matter was taken up today it was thought condign to give a decent burial to this controversy. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge by his order has referred to series of facts and catena of decisions. We need not refer to the same for the simon pure reason that the work has been completed. Mr. Kamlendra Singh has been given a clean chit and has been permitted to bid. However, the matter should not be allowed to rest here as the learned Single Judge has expressed his anguish over the matter in the manner ion which the BSNL has conducted itself and imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the respondents No.1 to 5. We do not intend to sustain the aforesaid cost aspect as during the pendency of the appeal the officers have worked hard to see the work is properly done.” (Emphasis Supplied)

5. Thereafter in paragraph 9, keeping in view the controversy involved in the matter, learned Division Bench laid down various guidelines by way of certain procedures to be followed in the matter of finalization of tenders in future.

6. After the matter was so disposed of by the Division Bench, it is seen that a charge-sheet was issued to the present petitioner under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (Annexure P-6) on 13.11.2003 and in the statement of imputation of misconduct the same allegations which formed part of writ petition and the writ appeal, i.e., procedural irregularities in issuing tender and awarding work was repeated and it was alleged in the charge-sheet that while approving the tender the petitioner herein Shri S.D. Bind as Telecom District Manager did not discharge his duties properly, has not followed the guidelines; as a result the BSNL has to sustain a loss of Rs.5,000/-being the cost imposed by the High Court in the writ petition.

7. A departmental enquiry under rule 16 was h