ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member)

2. The OA is filed challenging the imposition of penalty of reduction by two stages for a period of one year with allied consequences.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Divisional Engineer in the respondents organization, CBI has registered a case of disproportionate assets and filed a criminal case before the competent court on 19.7.2007. Following suit respondents’ after 2 years issued a charge memo dated 22.12.2007 with 5 articles of charge. Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case. In the disciplinary case the Inquiry officer has held charge 1 as partially proved and charge 3 fully proved. Rest as not proved. Disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for one year with allied conditions which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence, the OA.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that he was neither arrested nor suspended after registration of the case. ‘The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in a vindictive manner to destroy the career of the applicant. The charge memo was issued after 2 years of filing the criminal case. There is no evidence to hold the one and half charges as proved. Disciplinary and Appellate authorities did not apply their minds in imposing the penalty. The first charge is about non intimation of the acquisition of properties by the family members of the applicant whereas the I.O discussed about the non- intimation of properties acquired by the applicant. Therefore, the I.O has traversed beyond the charge which is not permissible. Regarding the 3rd charge, the daughters of the applicant who are majors received gifts to the tune of Rs.14.00 lakhs from the near relatives as stated by the I.O and not from outsiders. There is no rule cited by the I.O prescribing intimation when gifts are received from relatives. Hence, the findings of the I.O are perverse. The applicant has rendered 35 years of unblemished service. Even otherwise, the properties referred to, were within the earning capacity of the applicant. The career of the applicant has been adversely affected.

5. Per contra, the respondents have stated that the criminal case and the departmental charge memo are different since the witnesses are different.

In the criminal case, it is amassing of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income and in the charge memo along with amassing wealth the charge of non-intimation has also been included. The disciplinary and appellate authorities have applied their mind and imposed the penalty, which cannot be termed as vindictive. As per Rule 15(2) of BSNL CDA Rules, an employee can accept gifts from relatives having no official dealings and if the value is more than Rs.5,000 the same has to be reported to the competent authority. Applicant has accepted gifts to the extent of Rs.14 lakhs in the name of his daughters, who are dependents studying at Cuddapah, without taking proper permission from the competent authority.

Rules apply equally to all.

Applicant filed a rejoinder wherein the applicant claims that the respondents did not deny about the unblemished track record of the applicant. Hon’ble Apex Court observed that if no evidence was found in the criminal case, then there is no point to proceed departmentally. There is no application of mind on part of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities since they have only harped about the fact that the applicant has not brought out any fresh grounds to the fore. The applicant has been informing from the beginning that 2 properties were purchased in the name of his wife and 2 daughters with the permission of the respondents. This aspect was ignored. Rule 15(2) was not referred to in the charge memo or in the I.O report. The said rule is applicable if the employee receives the gifts and not by his family members. The CDA Rules 2006 came into vogue on 1.10.2006 whereas the check period runs from 1.1.2000 t