Employee Must Justify Prolonged Absence; Prasar Bharati CEO's Pre-2012 Dismissal Power Was Valid: Central Administrative Tribunal - 2025-08-06

CAT Upholds Dismissal of Doordarshan Cameraman, Cites Failure to Justify Prolonged Absence

Bengaluru, July 25, 2025 – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench, has dismissed an application by a former Doordarshan cameraman, C. Kumaravelu, challenging his dismissal from service in 2007 for unauthorized absence and using political influence to cancel a transfer. The Tribunal, comprising Justice B.K. Shrivastava (Judicial Member) and Mr. Santosh Mehra (Administrative Member) , held that the dismissal order was passed by a competent authority and that the employee failed to prove his prolonged absence was not wilful.

---

Background of the Case

C. Kumaravelu, a Cameraman Grade-II with Doordarshan, was transferred from Bengaluru to Jalandhar in July 2001. After being relieved from his duties in Bengaluru on August 28, 2001, he failed to report for duty at his new posting. This led to disciplinary proceedings, and a charge sheet was issued in January 2005 on two counts: 1. Unauthorized absence from duty since August 29, 2001, in violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2. Using political influence to get his transfer cancelled, specifically by approaching the then Minister of Urban Development, Shri Ananth Kumar, in violation of Rule 20 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, Shri B.S. Lalli, then Chief Executive Officer of Prasar Bharati, dismissed Kumaravelu from service on November 3, 2007. After a prolonged delay, his appeal was also dismissed on November 7, 2017, during the pendency of the present case before the Tribunal.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

The applicant, represented by Advocate Shri A.R. Holla, raised two primary contentions:

* Wilful Absence Not Proven: It was argued that the department failed to prove his absence was "wilful." Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India , the counsel contended that mere absence does not automatically amount to misconduct without proof of wilfulness.

* Competency of Dismissing Authority: The applicant challenged the authority of the CEO of Prasar Bharati to impose a major penalty of dismissal. He relied on the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Amendment Act, 2011, which vested the power to impose major penalties in the Central Government.

The respondents, represented by Senior Panel Counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty, countered that:

* The application was excessively delayed and barred by limitation.

* A proper inquiry was conducted, and the charges were proven. The applicant deliberately avoided joining his new post and used the unbelievable ground of illness.

* At the time of dismissal in 2007, the CEO of Prasar Bharati was the competent disciplinary authority, as the 2012 amendment did not have retrospective effect.

---

Tribunal's Legal Analysis and Findings

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation, holding that the respondents could not benefit from their own delay in deciding the appeal. Since the appeal was decided during the O.A.'s pendency, the case was maintainable.

On the Competency of the CEO: The Tribunal found the applicant's argument regarding the 2011 amendment misplaced. It observed:

"The amended Act has been published in the gazette dated 09.01.2012... In this case, the dismissal order was passed on 03.11.2007. Therefore, on the said date... the aforesaid amendment was not in force."

The bench relied on a government order dated April 25, 2007, which explicitly specified Shri B.S. Lalli, CEO of Prasar Bharati, as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority for Group ‘B’ officers of Doordarshan. Thus, the dismissal order was passed by a competent authority.

On the Charge of Wilful Absence: The Tribunal distinguished the Krushnakant B. Parmar case, citing the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu , which clarified that the burden is on the employee to show compelling circumstances for their absence. The Tribunal noted:

"It is obligatory on the part of employee to prove the fact that his absence was not wilful but upon the sound grounds. First burden is upon the employee who remained absent without any permission or sanctioned leave."

The bench observed that Kumaravelu’s multiple legal challenges to his transfer order indicated a deliberate unwillingness to join the new posting, undermining his claim of being absent due to illness.

Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal found it was proven by documentary evidence, including a letter from the Minister which the applicant never denied submitting.

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that both charges were duly proved and the disciplinary proceedings were valid, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary or appellate authorities. The Original Application was consequently dismissed, bringing an end to the long-standing legal battle.