Disciplinary actions against retired employees must comply with specific procedural rules, and any penalties imposed must be within the authority's jurisdiction, failing which such actions are void.

ORDER

Delivered by: Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Subodh Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 , has been filed by the applicants, seeking following reliefs:

“i) Issue an order or direction to quashing the impugned order dated 17.09.16 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned order dated 27.07.16 passed by the Respondent No. 4. (Annexure-1) & (Annexure-2) to this Original application).

ii) Issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to release full pension to the applicant in accordance with law.

iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) Award cost of the Original application. “

3. The facts, as stated by the applicant, who retired as a Senior Section Supervisor from the office of the Senior General Manager Telecom District Mathura (Respondent No.1) on 30.09.2014, are that the applicant was charged with misconduct while serving in the office of AO (CMTS), Mathura. The chargesheet dated 20.12.2012 was issued to the applicant under Rule 36 of BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules-2006 stating that he failed to follow proper procedures while issuing inventories, which led to financial loss to the BSNL of over Rs. 25 lakhs.

3.1 The applicant submitted a written statement dated 07.01.2013 in his defense denying the charges. A Disciplinary Inquiry was initiated in 2014, but due to delay and changes in Inquiry Officers, no progress was made in the said inquiry. Further, an application was submitted by the applicant requesting therein to conclude the inquiry before his retirement. After retirement, an Original Application bearing No. 426/2015 was filed by the applicant before this Tribunal whereby a direction was issued to the respondents by the Tribunal on 08.09.2015 to conclude the inquiry within three months. In compliance thereof, the applicant received a brief report of the Presenting Officer dated 07.11.2015 which was replied to by the applicant on 23.11.2015.

3.2 On 27.11.2015, the Inquiry Officer submitted a final report before the Disciplinary Authority. Further, vide letter dated 04.12.2015, the applicant was granted a last opportunity to represent himself. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his reply dated 21.12.2015 in his defence stating therein that the applicant joined his duties in CMTS section on 19.07.2008 and took over the charge of inventories on 24.07.2008 and was transferred on 12.09.2008, working only for a short duration of one month and twenty days and that the Inquiry Officer was not well aware of the rules and procedure of conducting the inquiry and committed several omissions by violating law of natural justice.

3.3 After passage of 6 months, in spite of repeated representations, when the applicant received no information from the respondents, the applicant filed a Contempt Petition bearing No. 76/2016, whereby the notice was issued to the respondents on 18.04.2016. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a punishment order dated 27.07.2016, imposing a 20% cut in the applicant’s pension for four successive years. The applicant challenged this decision through an appeal, but the Appellate Authority rejected the same vide impugned order dated 17.09.2016. Hence, the instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order.

4. In the counter affidavit, the