ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

1. Owing to substantial similarity in the issue at hand, both the aforesaid Original Applications have been taken up for consideration and by a common order, same is disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have made submissions in the lead case i.e OA No.215/2022 and therefore, the facts of this case are taken into consideration for final decision.

3. The applicant before this Tribunal is challenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29.07.2017 and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 05.11.2016 imposing punishment of reduction of increment by one stage in time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay, on the ground of being too harsh and discriminatory in nature. As per the facts stated in the Original Application, applicant was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 25.05.2000. It is submitted that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L.) company came to be floated by the Government of India and large number of employees were transferred from DoT to BSNL in the year 2000 initially on deputation basis. BSNL has its own rule and therefore, Junior Engineer came to be merged with the post of JTOs. Thus, the applicant who was working as Junior Engineer in DoT came to be designated as JTO (E)

when he was absorbed in BSNL.

4. On 09.10.2014, the applicant was served with a charge sheet that had two sets of charge: one, while the applicant was working as Supervisor in charge of the works of CMO pertaining to T.E. Buildings of Naroda carried out by M/s.I.G. Electricals Ahmedabad and M/s.Apsara Electric Co. Ahmedabad, he failed to ensure effective supervision of works carried out by these agency and further failed to verify the genuineness of the DGKWH Units; and second, it was alleged that the applicant failed to ensure proper maintenance of EA set logbook in which entries of power failure was required to be recorded with details of causes which warranted running of the EA sets, as a result of which, there was some wrong claim by the contractor, as it was detected that the contractor had wrongly claimed an amount of Rs.5,06,435/-. The facts on record specifically show that thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed, inquiry was conducted, inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry officer. Then, representation was called for after which, Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 05.11.2016 imposing penalty of reduction of one increment with cumulative effect. Against this penalty, appeal was submitted which was also rejected vide order dated 29.07.2017. Thereupon, a review was submitted which was also rejected by impugned order dated 03.08.2017.

5. In the Original application, it was pleaded that similarly situated officers to whom similar charge sheets had been issued, were given only a penalty of censor and that fact was brought to the notice of the authorities. However, without considering the aforesaid aspect, the order of Disciplinary Authority was maintained. It was further submitted that this Tribunal had also considered the aforesaid aspect of the case in OA No.184/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2022 in which cumulative effect or future effect of reduction was held to be untenable. It is submitted that impugned punishment is harsh and disproportionate. On these grounds, the present Original Application has been filed.

6. After notice, official respondents filed their reply and justified their action. It is submitted that after issuance of charge sheet, due procedure was followed by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Review Authority. There is no procedural lapse or irregularity which warrants interference by the Tribunal in its limited jurisdiction and they have prayed for dismissal of the OAs.

7. M.A.No.189/2022 was filed for condonat