Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13216
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 2150/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.S.Verma
For the Respondents: Mrs.B.P.Maldhure
Departmental enquiry findings perverse if based on no evidence like originals or witnesses for denied documents, breaching natural justice; judicial review permits interference with such findings.
Headnote:(A) BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 - Rules 1(c), 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(e), 5(4), 5(25), 5(31), 13(1) - Departmental enquiry - Principles of natural justice - Charged employee denied originals of key documents like affidavit and call records, no witnesses examined to prove disputed documents, reliance on photocopies/certified copies without verification - Inquiry Officer failed to call for originals or examine attesting officers when documents denied - Charges held not proved due to perversity in findings based on no evidence - Penalty orders set aside. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25)
(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Proof of charges - When charged officer denies documents, department must produce originals and examine witnesses to prove authenticity and authorship - Mere admission claimed but disputed via protest letters, no receipt dates on forms, no evidence of forgery or arrest - Inordinate delay in raising minor personal declarations (e.g., 5-day marriage gap) unexplained - Findings perverse if based on no evidence, judicial review permissible. (Paras 19, 22, 24, 25)
(C) Judicial review - Scope - Interference warranted when enquiry findings perverse, lacking evidence, violating natural justice - Not mere re-appreciation but setting aside conclusions drawn despite no material. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Junior Telecom Officer challenged charge sheet under BSNL CDA Rules for alleged false affidavit claiming unmarried status, false declarations in welfare scheme form about spouse and dependent father before marriage dates/income limits, submitting unauthorized/forged call records to police, and failing to report arrest. Inquiry Officer held some charges proved; Disciplinary Authority imposed reduction in pay stage; appellate order dismissed challenge. Applicant claimed charges stemmed from matrimonial disputes, originals not produced, no witnesses examined.
Findings of Court:
All charges failed due to lack of proof: no original affidavit or witness; no receipt date on form proving pre-marriage declaration; no pension evidence for father; no original records proving forgery or authorship of letter; station diary showed different person arrested. Enquiry violated natural justice.
Issues: Whether principles of natural justice followed in denying originals/proof of disputed documents; sufficiency of evidence for charges without witnesses/originals; perversity of findings permitting judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: Departmental enquiries require originals and witness evidence for denied documents; reliance on photocopies without verification breaches natural justice; perverse findings (no evidence) amenable to judicial review; minor unexplained delays and lack of prejudice evidence vitiate charges.
Result: Original Application allowed; impugned orders set aside with consequential benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary orders and charges outlined (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicant's denial of charges due to matrimonial disputes (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. inquiry findings, penalty imposition, and respondents' defense (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. applicant's oral arguments on personal nature and procedural lapses (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. respondents' justification of proved charges and natural justice (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. article i not proved due to lack of original affidavit and witnesses (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. article ii fails for lack of receipt date and delay (Para 19) |
| 8. article iii unproven without pension evidence or benefit drawn (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. article iv unsustainable without original cdrs or authorship proof (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. article v disproved by station diary showing different arrestee (Para 24) |
| 11. perverse findings based on no evidence warrant judicial interference (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
By Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)
In this O.A. the applicant has challenged the order dated 22nd February, 2013 and order dated 16th September, 2015 and the order dated 2nd May, 2016.
2. Facts in nutshell are that the applicant was appointed as Junior Telecom Officer in the year 2002. Presently, the applicant is working in the respondent’s company at Kuhi, Nagpur.
3. It is averred by the applicant that he had been served with memo of charge sheet issued by respondent no.4, the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 36 of the BSNL, CDA Rules 2006. The charges were as under:
“Article-I
While working as JTO (CDMA), Nari, Nagpur during the period 2007 to March 2010, the applicant had committed grave misconduct by making false statement on affidavit on 25-05-2007 in front of Executive Magistrate, Nagpur that he is unmarried. However, he was married with Smt. Deepali Titarmare at that time. His divorce was effective on 27/06/2007 by an order of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, Nagpur and thereby, he acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 1(c), 4(1)(e) 5(31) and 5(25) of BSNL CDA Rule, 2006.
Article-II
The applicant had committed grave misconduct by giving false information in the registration form of BSNL MRS Scheme on 02-07-2007 by including name of Smt. Preeti V.Titarmare as his wife before their actual marriage on 07- 07-2007 in the BSNL MRS card bearing No.1659 which was issued by the SDE(Welfare) on 05-07-07 and thereby, he acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby he contravened Rule 4(1)(a) 4(1)(c) and Rule 5(4) of BSNL CDA Rule, 2006.
Article-III
The applicant had committed grave misconduct by giving false information about his father in the registration form of BSNL MRS Scheme on 02-07-2007 that his father was dependent on him and income of his father from all sources does not exceed Rs.1500/- per month although his father was working in ITI, Bhandara and his income exceeded Rs.1500/- p.m. and thereby he contravened Rule 4(1)(a) 4(1)(c) and Rule 5(4) of BSNL CDA Rule, 2006.
Article-IV
The applicant had committed grave misconduct by communicating/ submitting official information i.e. forged itemized Call Detail Records of Mobile Nos.9422146277 (11 pages) & 9423679415 (14 pages) to Inquiry Officer, O/O Commissioner of Police, Nagpur though he was not authorized to do so and thereby he contravened Rule 4(1)(a) 4(1)(b) 4(1)(c) 5(31) and Rule 13(1) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006.
Article-V
The applicant was arrested by the Imambada Police Station, Nagpur, but he failed to intimate the concerned authorities in the department about his arrest on 16-01-2012 in Court Case No.2936/2010, and thereby he contravened Rule 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), and 4(1)(c) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006.”
4. The applicant contends that all the charges pertain to the matrimonial disputes and cases were pending against in various Courts at Nagpur. All these litigations were false and fabricated and these were made by his wife and her parents with the sole intention of spoiling the career of the applicant. The applicant denied all the charges level
