Disciplinary penalties must be supported by substantial evidence; mere endorsement without authority does not constitute misconduct.

ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Challenge in this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to the order dated 20th January, 2020 passed by the Chief Managing Director, BSNL thereby imposing punishment of 10% cut in the pension of the applicant for a period of two years and to the order dated 26th July, 2021 passed by Board of Directors, BSNL upholding the order of penalty and direction to the respondents to release pensionary benefits to the applicant including commutation of pension and regular pension and other pensionary benefits.

2. Facts in brief are that the applicant retired on 30th September, 2013 as AGM (Admin).

3. An enquiry was held against one Mr. P.Y. Patre, T.O.A. In the enquiry, he was held guilty and disciplinary authority P.Y. Patre challenged this decision before this Tribunal by preferring OA No. 2048/2009. During the pendency of this OA, an order was passed on 04th May, 2012 (Annexure-A-11) to the following effect:-

“The O.A. has been pending since 2009 respondent has not filed written statement so far. We have perused the material available on record. We have noticed an inherent defect in the inquiry Proceedings in as much as copy of inquiry report has not been furnished by the disciplinary authority to the applicant before imposing the punishment of removal from service. Admittedly the copy of the report was furnished along with order of punishment. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the glaring illegality among several others impugning the order of punishment imposed on the applicant.”

4. Thereafter, a note was allegedly endorsed by the applicant for conversion of penalty of Removal from service into Censure. Penalty was accordingly converted into Censure by Senior General Manager on 27th December, 2012.

5. In the year 2016, the applicant came to be charge-sheeted.

The charge levelled against the applicant was as under:-

“Statement of Articles of Charge framed against Shri V.D. Shendre (HRMS No: 197407547), the then AGM(Admn), Chandrapur (Now Retired)

Article-I

That said Shri V.D. Shendre, while functioning as AGM(Admn.), Chandrapur SSA, during the year 2012 had in an unauthorized manner and without having either the authority or the jurisdiction endorsed the proposal submitted by Shri R.M.J. Swamy, the then SDE(Legal), Chandrapur for conversion of penalty of Removal from Service w.e.f. 30-11-1993 of Shri P.Y. Patre, Ex.TOA, Chandrapur of the Department of Telecommunication to penalty of Censure without due diligence and examination of all aspects of the case.

Thus by aforesaid act, Shri V.D. Shendre, the then AGM(Admn.), Chandrapur (Now Retired) failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006.”

6. Inquiry was held against the applicant. Inquiry Officer held him guilty. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 10% cut in the pension. The appellate authority also confirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority. This is how the applicant is before us.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has allegedly endorsed the note of conversion of penalty of Removal into Censure. However, that note is not forthcoming. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the applicant endorsed the said note, the applicant was not the final authority. applicant cannot be hauled up for simply endorsing the conversion.

9. Learned coun