Point of Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Question whether evidence against the charged officer was adequate or reliable in the departmental proceeding would not be a ground for interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Since both the petitions are arising from the same order and relieves sought for are also identical, they are clustered together for disposal by a common judgment.

2. The factual background of the case is a under:

While the petitioners were working as Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) at its Aizwal office in Mizoram, disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against them for misconduct. Such proceedings against them were conducted separately. Though Inquiry Officer held that charges of misconduct were not proved against them, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the decision of the inquiry officer and after providing to them opportunity of making representation, imposed penalty on them reducing their pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 02 (two) years with immediate effect and in the said penalty order it was further directed that petitioners would not be entitled to any increment of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the said period, such reduction of pay would have the effect of postponing their future increments of pay.

3. Both the petitioners challenged the said order of the disciplinary authority in departmental appeal by filing separate appeals to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication and Chairman, Telecom Commission, New Delhi. The appellate authority, by two separate orders dated 07.04.2012 dismissed their appeals. Aggrieved petitioners challenged the said order of the departmental authority by filing separate applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal, hereunder) at Guwahati under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which were also dismissed by the Tribunal by a common order dated 27.09.2016.

4. By means of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Departmental Appellate Authority.

5. Since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners were held separately under separate memo, it would be appropriate to the refer to the individual facts of those petitions which are as under:

Facts of WP (C) (CAT) No. 04 of 2017

By a memorandum Under No. NE-VIG/KBS-CBI/Pt. II/2004/5 dated Shillong, 02nd December, 2006, petitioner A.R. Biswas, Junior Telecom Officer, was imputed by the Chief General Manager, N.E.I. Telecom Circle, Shillong (Disciplinary Authority) on the charge of misconduct and it was proposed in the said memorandum that departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965, (for short CCS (CCA) Rules would be carried out against him on the following charge:

“Article of charge

That the said Shri A.R. Biswas, while functioning as JTO, Aizwal, under SDOT, Aizwal in Mizoram during the year 1996-97, 1997-98 was entrusted with supervising the execution of Overhead Cable Laying work for Aizwal twon. Shri A.R. Biswas, neither maintained measurement book (M.B.) nor maintained day to day measurement of the overhead cable laid. The said work is carried out by Shri K. Sena, Proprietor, M/s Southern Repairing Work, Aizwal. Shri K. Sena submitted 95 Nos. of bills amounting to Rs. 291880/- (only for cable laying) against the execution of overhead cable laying. Shri A.R. Biswas certified the aforesaid bills but did not endorse the measurement particulars of the cable laid in the bills as required by rules and submitted to Shri K.B. Shome, the then SDOT, Aiwal for passing. Similarly Shri K. Sena, submitted 19 Nos. of bills amounting to Rs. 65635/- (only for cable laying) against the aforesaid work. Shri A.R. Biswas, also certified the 19 Nos. of bills without endorsing measurement particulars of the cable laid in the bills and submitted to Shri S. Debroy, the then SDOT, Aizwal for passing.

The certification of the Cable laying works without maintaining the MB (measurement book) and not submitti