Point of law: Schedule appended to a statute cannot in any way wipe out main provisions of the Rules in effect and spirit.

ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

The first respondent was working as Junior Telecom Officer (Civil) at the relevant point of time. On 26.03.2007, he was arrested and was in custody for three days. His arrest was consequent to the complaint filed against him alleging that he indulged in bigamous marriage. On investigation, police filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent. The criminal Court took cognizance of the offence alleged and he was placed on trial in C.C.No.524 of 2007 in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Nampally at Hyderabad.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him by framing charges on 31.10.2007. The charge sheet contained two charges. Firstly, it was alleged that he suppressed about his arrest and detention and secondly he contracted second marriage, which is in violation of Conduct Rules. The enquiry officer held both the charges proved.

3. While so, by judgment dated 10.06.2011, the trial Court convicted the first respondent on the offence alleged and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of 3,000/-. By order dated 10.10.2012, the first respondent was dismissed from service based on the charges proved in the domestic enquiry and that he was convicted and sentenced by criminal Court. The appeal preferred by the first respondent to the Chief General Manager was rejected on 01.08.2013.

4. In the meanwhile, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the first respondent preferred Crl.A.No.296 of 2011. The first appellate Court allowed the said Criminal Appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence by the judgment dated 14.03.2013. The Court is informed that estranged wife preferred Crl.R.C.No.1025 of 2014 before this Court challenging the acquittal granted by the first appellate Court and the said Crl.R.C. is pending consideration of this Court.

5. Challenging the order of dismissal from service, the first respondent filed O.A.No.1382 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent contended that the order of dismissal from service is vitiated on the ground that incompetent authority passed the order and, therefore, the order is vitiated on that ground alone. According to the first respondent, the Chief General Manager is the appointing authority, and he alone is competent to dismiss him from service, whereas the order of dismissal was passed by the Chief Engineer, who is subordinate to the appointing authority. The order of dismissal was also assailed on the ground that the appellate Court granted acquittal and therefore the order of dismissal could not have been made by referring to the conviction accorded by the trial Court and the findings in departmental proceedings are also not valid in view of the judgment of the appellate Court.

6. With reference to the second aspect, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the first respondent and upheld the disciplinary action taken against the first respondent even though he was acquitted by the appellate Court. This finding of the Tribunal has become final, as the first respondent has not assailed the said finding.

7. On the first aspect, the Tribunal agreed with the contention of the first respondent and held that the order of dismissal was passed by an authority lower in rank to that of the Chief General Manager. The order is vitiated on that ground and accordingly the order of punishment, as affirmed by the appellate authority, was set aside with a direction to reinstate the first respondent into service. The Tribunal further directed the second respondent to pass final order after serving the copy of enquiry report and affording opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is before this Court.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioners – BSNL, by order dated 05.02.1998, the first respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer by the Su