S S Shankeen vs MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY on 14 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “a. Quash the Order bearing No: Sr.GM Kolar/Disc Case/Sri.Shankeen.S.S/2200/Rule-36/7, @ BG dated: 18.04.2023 Vide Annexure-A8' Passed by the Senior General Manager, Telecom, (Kolar) Respondent no.4 herein.

b. Quash the Order bearing No: 31-21/2022 TFS dated: 17.3.2023 passed by the Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi, passed by Respondent No. 1 vide ANNEXURE-A9 and

c. Grant all consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum & cost of litigation.

d. Direct the Respondents to forthwith release the regular pension and other terminal benefit like DCRG, and commutation of pension, due to the applicant after his retirement along with admissible interest on the delayed payment.

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 250/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

e. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of Justice and equity.”

2. Statement of articles of charges dated 31.03.2011 issued to the applicant herein is the same as that of the statement of articles of charges dated 31.03.2011 issued to Shri M.Rajappa- applicant in OA No.126/2024. Originally the penalty of compulsory retirement was passed in respect of both these applicants. On the challenge made to the said punishment order, this Tribunal was pleased to set aside the same for want of competency of the authority in issuing the said punishment order. On further challenge made by the respondents in W.P.No.15639/2017, the matter was clubbed with W.P.NO.4968/2014, a common order dated 19.03.2021 was passed dismissing the writ petitions, however, reserving liberty to the competent Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As such fresh punishment order has been passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority vide impugned punishment order dated 18.04.2023 imposing the penalty of 25%

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 250/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

pension cut for combined service of DOT and BSNL for eight years on the charged employee – applicant herein.

3. Regarding the power of competent authority to proceed/continue with Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, subsequent to the retirement of the employee where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated while the applicant was in service has been duly considered by this Bench in OA No.126/2024 in the context of dictum pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.V.Kapoor vs. Union of India and others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 314, vis-à-vis the phrase, ‘grave misconduct’. On having analysed the matter at length, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant therein, would amount to grave misconduct and continuation of the proceedings under Rule 61(4)(2)(a) cannot be held to be bad in law. However, having regard to the quantum of punishment imposed to the applicant therein, compared to the applicant herein, the punishment was modified on par with the applicant herein. The punishment of monthly pension cut by 25% for combined service of DOT and BSNL for a period of eight years, being found to be

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 250/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

reasonable and not shocking the conscience of this court, in the light of the proved charges, no interference is warranted in this case.

4. For the reasons aforesaid, this OA stands dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.126/2024 dated 14.10.2026.

5. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J) sd.

S SARALADEVI