Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9543
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, J, MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ACJ
K.V. Subbarao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00448/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Party-In-Person
For the Respondents: Smt.K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG
The legal principle upheld is that disciplinary authorities maintain exclusive discretion in imposing penalties based on evidence, subject to judicial review only in cases of arbitrariness or procedural violations.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the legality of the penalty imposed following departmental proceedings and sought directions to implement previous Tribunal orders - The respondent’s failure to comply with Tribunal directions constituted non-application of mind - The Tribunal concluded that the order of penalty was justified as the Guidelines were followed and no procedural rules were violated. (Paras 1 to 12)
(B) Principle of Natural Justice - The execution of procedural rules in disciplinary actions was upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of disciplinary authorities unless perverse. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged a penalty for alleged misconduct of approving unauthorized expenditures in printing a telephone directory. Previous Tribunal orders directed fresh examination of the case, but the respondents maintained the penalty. The applicant argued that there were procedural flaws in handling his case.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's claims of procedural violation and dismissed the application, affirming the validity of the actions taken by the respondents.
Issues: The court addressed whether the respondents acted beyond their authority and failed to comply with the Tribunal’s previous orders while imposing a penalty on the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority complied with stipulated procedures post-enquiry and upheld the penalty order, deeming the actions of the authorities as justified and lawful. The Tribunal emphasized that its role is not to interfere in disciplinary matters unless there is clear indication of arbitrary or unjust actions.
Result: The OA is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments raised by applicant regarding non-compliance and procedural flaws. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. facts of the case regarding challenge to penalty. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on authority compliance and judicial limits. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. ratio decidendi emphasizing disciplinary authority judgment. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. final conclusion dismissing the oa. (Para 12) |
ORDER
PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:
“....to set aside and quash DOT order no. 8/8/2008-Vig-II dated 19th November 2019, copy of which was served to the applicant vide DOT letter no.8/8/2008-Vig.II dated 10.02.2020. It is also prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue directions to the respondents to implement orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA no.1044 of 2015 please.”
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
i. The applicant had earlier filed OA.No.1044/2015 before this Tribunal challenging DOT charge memo no.8/8/2008-Vig.II, dt.30.06.2008, UPSC letter no.F-3/55/2011-S-I, dt.26.09.2011, and penalty order no.8/8/2008-Vig.II, dt.09.11.2011. This Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and on account of absence of clarity regarding the delegation of powers issued by the BSNL, had set aside the impugned orders. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to issue fresh orders, as ordered by this Tribunal. Instead, they chose to uphold the penalty order No.8/8/2008-Vig.II, dt.09.11.2011, which had been set aside by this Tribunal in OA.No.1044/2015, vide DOT letter no.8/8/2008-Vig.II, dt.10.02.2020.
ii. It is alleged that, by the said act, respondents had acted as an appellate authority to this Tribunal. The respondents did not follow the orders of this Tribunal in letter and spirit. Respondents should have referred the matter to the UPSC before upholding the orders set aside by the Tribunal and issued fresh orders, as directed by this Tribunal. According to the applicant, the respondents are harassing the applicant, who retired three year prior to filing of this OA, and they are not willing to comply with the orders passed by this Tribunal. Hence, this OA.
iii. The applicant has cited several observations made by this Tribunal in the order passed in OA.No.1044 of 2015, to show his innocence. They are as follows –
“10. ...... BSNL was incorporated in 2000 and substantial activity of the Department of Telecommunications was assigned to it. In the formative years, there was no clarity on many administrative aspects and efforts were being made, from time to time, to bring about clarity.”
iv. As per Para-6 of the Tribunal’s order, the contention of the applicant in OA.No.1044/2015 was that the very charge was without any basis, particularly, when the respondents themselves have found the defect in the relevant provision of law and, hence, the punishment was totally unwarranted. At Para-14 of the same order, this Tribunal has concluded as below:
“14. When this is the fluidity of the situation from the perspective of the respondents themselves, it is difficult to infer that the applicant was wrong in coming to that very conclusion. Though the applicant made a specific reference to the Circular dt.04.02.2004 and the amendment carried out on 04/07.06.2004 in his response to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the same was not dealt with either by the UPSC or the disciplinary authority. It is a clear case of non application of mind.”
v. The applicant further submits that he had filed a Contempt Petition in OA.No.1044 of 2015, before this Tribunal on 05.02.2020. After seeing the CP, the respondents hurriedly issued a back-dated letter which was neither issued nor served on the applicant. The said letter was claimed to have been sent through the CGMT, AP Circle, Hyderabad, which was a non-existing entity in November, 2019. According to the ap
