SHYAM BIHARI vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 28 October 2026

Order

C O R A M

E MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA K N’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

Shyam Bihari Son of Sri Maha lage – Tiebaris P.S. Haveli Khara Kamlesh Kant Yadav Son of Sri O. - Pasopur, District - Darbhang ndra Deo Yadav Son of Sri Ben lage - Dhaba, P.S. - Khesar Distr Radhey ShyamYadav Son of L lage - PokhariaP.S. Haveli Khara Raj Kumar Yadav Son of S ident of Village / P.O. - Harpur, Abbay Shankar Jha Son of Sri Si O. - Pindaruch, P.S. - Kamtaul D Bhola Choudharay Son of Late lage Dharhar, P.S. - Laheriasari D Lal Bau Choudhary Son of Sri lage/ P.O. - Pindaruch, P.S. - har) . Mohan Choudhary Son of Late B Village - Chahuta, P.S. - Bisfi Di Arun Kumar Son of Late Ga ngpurAsthghar, P. S.- Athmalgol

TIVE TRIBUNAL CH, AT RANCHI

Reserved on: - 07.10.2026 Pronounced on: 28.10.2026 M KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER [J] CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] abir Prasad Yadav Resident of agpur District - Munger (Bihar). R.P. Yadav Resident of Village ga (Bihar). ngali Prasad Yadav, Resident of rict - Banka (Bihar) . Late SukhdeoYadav Resident of agpur District - Munger (Bihar). Sri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, District - Munger (Bihar). ita Ram Jha, Resident of Village District -Darbhanga (Bihar). e Arjun Choudhary Resident of District - Darbhanga (Bihar). Bimal Choudhary, Resident of Kamtaul District - Darbhanga Baleshway Choudhary, Resident strict - Madhubani (Bihar). anak Rai, Resident of Village- la, District - Patna (Bihar).

f

e f f , e f f a t - Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench

11. Dila

1. T Dire

2. T Jan

3. T Jhar

4. T Lim

5. T Man Dha

6. T Nig

7. T Nig

8. T Tele

9. T Man

10. God

11. Jam

12. Sah

Dilip Kumar Son of Late Ka awarpur, P.S. - Bihta, District - P Versu The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lim ector, Jan Path, New Delhi-1100 The Assistant General Manager, Path, New Delhi-110001. The Chief General Manager, B rkhand Circle, Ranchi. The General Manager, Telecom mited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). The Deputy General Manager (A nager, Telecom District, Bha anbad (Jharkhand). The Telecom District Manager, T am Limited, Dumka (Jharkhand) The Senior General Manager, Te am Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhan The Principal, ARTTC, Offic ecomm, Arttc Building, Bharat S 5217 (Jharkhand). The Divisional Engineer (CFA) nager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lim The Sub Divisional Officer (T), dda (Jharkhand). The Sub Divisional Officer (T), mtara (Jharkhand). The Sub Divisional Officer (T), ebganj (Jharkhand).

asimSah Resident of Village - Patna (Bihar). ………Applicants us mited Through Chief Managing

001. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam A & P), Office Of The General arat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar ). elecom District, Bharat Sanchar nd) ce Of The General Manager, Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ranchi Office Of The Telecom District mited, Dumka (Jharkhand). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

- s g , , m l , r r , i t , , , Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench

13. Lim

14. Deo

15. Mad

16. Lim For Appli For Respo

1. “8.1 asid in A 8.2 peri duty dela 8.3 T Resp App 8.4 A be a

2. discussed

The Sub Divisional Officer mited, Pakur (Jharkhand). The Sub Divisional Officer (T), oghar (Jharkhand). The Sub Divisional Officer (T), dhupur (Jharkhand). The Sub Divisional Officer mited, Duma (Jharkhand). icant:- Mr. M.P. Dixit, ondents:- Mr. Prabhat Ku

ORDER

PER:-KUMAR RAJESH CHAN The applicant filed the OA fo 1 That your Lordships may gracio de the impugned Order of suspensi nnexure-A/7 Series. That your Lordships may graciou od of suspension from 24.05.2019 y for all purposed including arrea ay. That your Lordships may further b pondents grant the all conseque licants for which they are legally e Any other relief or reliefs includin allowed in favour of the Applicant.” Brief facts of the case, as and delineated as follows:

(T), Bharat San Char Nigam Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (T), Bharat San Char Nigam …… Respondents Advocate umar Sinha, ASC

NDRA, MEMBER[A] r following relief:- ously be pleased to quash and set ion dated 24.05.2019 as contained usly be pleased to treat the entire to the date of its revocation as on ars of salary without any further be pleased to command / direct the ential benefits in favour of the entitled too. ng the cost of the proceeding may ” s stated in the OA, has been m , , m s

t d e n r e e y n Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench 2.1 The Lim Man Lab Stat vari Sub ‘D’ Offi earl 20.0 initi 2.2 Ag filin 29.1 was with subm appr orde whi as r a T

e applicants are permanent empl mited (BSNL), working under t nager, Dumka. They were i bourers between 1985 and 1988 tus with effect from 09.03.1998 ious judicial fora after pro bsequently, they were regularize post of Regular Majdoor with fice Order dated 11.07.2002. H lier kept their Temporary Statu 01.1999 on allegations concern ial appointments and working ce grieved thereby, the applicant ng Original Application No. 144 11.2001. The order keeping their s set aside, and the respondents h liberty to conduct an enq mission of forged certificate ropriate opportunity of hearing er, the applicants submitted the ich were subsequently verified reflected in the respondents’ lette Three-Member Enquiry Commi oyees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam the Telecommunication District initially appointed as Casual 8 and were granted Temporary pursuant to the directions of the olonged adjudicatory process. ed against the permanent Group h effect from 06.02.2002 vide However, the respondents had s in abeyance vide order dated rning the genuineness of their ertificates. ts approached the Tribunal by of 1999, which was allowed on r Temporary Status in abeyance were directed to reinstate them, quiry into the allegations of es after affording them an

g. In compliance with the said eir work diaries on 16.01.2002, and found correct and genuine, er dated 08.07.2002. Thereafter, ittee examined the matter and m t l y e . p e d d r y n e , f n d , , , d Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench con the cate upo regu 06.0 2.3 The regu rega anot purs app Trib Trib the pass and thei imp proc wer 09.0 Patn cluded in its report dated 12.07 concerned Temporary Statu egorized as false. The Depart on scrutiny of the relevant ularization, which was accordin 02.2002. e applicants contend that, despit ularization, the respondents repe arding the genuineness of their ther enquiry was initiated in 200 suant to the directions of t licants further submit that the re bunal’s order dated 29.11.200 bunal through various original ap post of Telephone Mechanic, sed in 2015, recognizing the leg regularization and their entitlem ir juniors were promoted. Wh plement the directions, the ceedings. Subsequently, termin re issued against them, but the 06.2015, and the respondents’ na High Court was dismissed on

7.2002 that the appointments of us Mazdoors could not be tmental Promotion Committee, records, recommended their ngly effected with effect from te the aforesaid verification and eatedly reopened the same issue initial appointments. Although 05, it was stopped on 02.03.2006 the competent authority. The espondents never challenged the

01. They also approached the pplications seeking promotion to which were allowed by orders gality of their Temporary Status ment to promotion from the dates hen the respondents failed to applicants initiated contempt nation orders dated 28.05.2015 e Tribunal stayed the same on challenge before the Hon’ble 27.08.2015.

f e , r m d e h e e e o s s s o t n e Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench 2.4 The char alle orde Orig the resp dism conn dire the keep in a was the subm Trib 2.5 The pron Stat Sect Cod e applicants further state that t rge memorandum dated 29.1 gations, compelling them to f /00335 of 2017 and 051/00132 er dated 01.08.2017, quashed ginal Application No. 051/00335 Hon’ble Jharkhand High Co pondents’ Special Leave Petition missed by the Hon’ble Suprem nected proceedings, the Tribun ected a comprehensive enquiry senior officials allegedly resp ping the charge memorandum a abeyance pending compliance wi s not concluded and no consequ senior officials within the sti mit that the charge memoranda bunal’s directions and subsequen e applicants allege that, de nouncements, the respondents tion Case No. 94 of 2019, re tions 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 de, reiterating the allegation the respondents again issued a 12.2016 concerning the same file Original Application Nos. 2 of 2017. The Tribunal, vide d the charge memorandum in 5 of 2017, which was upheld by ourt on 17.01.2018, and the n (Civil) No. 29396 of 2018 was me Court on 02.11.2018. In the nal, by order dated 11.04.2018, and appropriate action against ponsible for the irregularities, against the concerned applicant ithin six months. As the enquiry uential action was taken against ipulated period, the applicants a stood quashed in terms of the nt orders dated 10.04.2019. espite the aforesaid judicial lodged Deoghar Town Police egistered on 08.03.2019 under and 120-B of the Indian Penal ns that they had procured a e . e n y e s e , t , t y t s e l e r l d Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench emp the date subs The Jhar date rem the repr 2.6 In t orde cont lega The alre upo Sup agai irreg inte the may ployment on the basis of forged w respondents placed the applican ed 24.05.2019 on the basis o sequent recall of their earlier pr e applicants obtained anticipa rkhand High Court on 26.06.201 ed 29.06.2019, 01.07.2019 a minders, seeking revocation of t respondents failed to revoke resentations. the present application, the appl er dated 24.05.2019 as illegal, trary to the earlier judicial pr ality of their appointments, Temp ey contend that the respondents a eady examined by the compete on by the Tribunal, the Hon’ble preme Court, without complyin inst the senior officials al gularities. Accordingly, the app ervention for redressal of their g impugned suspension order, alo y be deemed fit and proper by the working certificates. Thereafter, nts under suspension vide order of this criminal case and the rotection by the Sessions Court. atory bail from the Hon’ble 19 and submitted representations and 09.07.2019, along with the suspension order. However, e the suspension despite such licants challenge the suspension arbitrary, unjust, punitive and ronouncements concerning the porary Status and regularization. are attempting to reopen matters ent authorities and adjudicated e High Court and the Hon’ble ng with the directions issued llegedly responsible for the licants seek appropriate judicial grievances and for setting aside ong with consequential reliefs as e Tribunal.

, r e . e s h , h n d e . s d e d e l e s Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench

3. contains m to be dism statement: A. The res Bharat appoint obtaine the bas Accord Departm the app procedu respond departm Town 08.03.2 compet B. The res as Cas applica support guidelin

Respondents have filed writte many erroneous, misleading and missed. Following are the main - spondents, while admitting that Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL tments remain under a cloud ed Temporary Status pursuant to sis of false and forged work c ding to the respondents, the said ment of Telecommunications (D plicants and other beneficiaries, w ure and without approval of dents submit that these allega mental complaint dated 14.02.20 Police Station Case No. 94 2019, and the investigation tent police authorities. spondents dispute the applicants sual Labourers between 1985 a ants have failed to produce ting their alleged engagemen nes dated 30.03.1985, which en statements and stated that OA concocted aspects and is liable n grounds taken in the written the applicants are employees of L), contend that the applicants’ of suspicion as they allegedly o the order dated 09.03.1998 on certificates and gradation lists. d order was issued by the then DOT) officials in collusion with without following the prescribed the competent authority. The ations formed the basis of the 019, pursuant to which Deoghar of 2019 was registered on remains pending before the s’ claim that they were engaged and 1988, contending that the valid documentary evidence nt. They rely upon the DOT provided for the stoppage of

A e n f ’ y n . n h d e e r n e d e e T f Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench recruitm scheme Accord under t pursue judicial applica Regula certain docume crimina C. The re conferr by the c then T with th to keep the Trib of 199 availab came 13.09.2 subsequ ment of casual labourers, and es introduced through orders dat ding to the respondents, the a the said schemes by the compe their alleged claims through th l forums at the relevant time ants obtained Temporary Status a ar Majdoors with effect from 06. departmental officials, and ents are under investigation in al case. espondents further contend tha ring Temporary Status had been competent DOT authorities vide elecom District Engineer, Dum he direction. The subsequent ord p the grant of Temporary Status bunal’s order dated 29.11.2001 i 9 was passed on the basis of ble, without knowledge of the all to light through departmenta 2018 and 09.01.2019. The res uent verification reports, dep d the subsequent regularization ted 07.11.1989 and 17.12.1993. applicants were not considered etent establishment and did not he appropriate administrative or . They further allege that the and subsequent regularization as .02.2002 through collusion with that the relevant orders and n connection with the aforesaid at the order dated 09.03.1998 directed to be kept in abeyance e letter dated 11.08.1998, but the mka, allegedly failed to comply der dated 20.01.1999 was issued s in abeyance. They submit that in Original Application No. 144 the facts and documents then leged collusion and fraud, which al investigation reports dated spondents also allege that the artmental correspondence and n . d t r e s h d d e e y d t n h d e d Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench regular and tha Tribuna the ear of supp D. With respond Tribuna was in consequ that a extensi content automa respond departm notwith ground orders d motion the frau rization proceedings were part o at certain documents submitted al were forged. On this basis, th lier judicial order, contending th pressed facts and fraudulent docu regard to the subsequent d dents submit that they conduct al’s order dated 11.04.2018 132 of 2017. Although an appli nitially filed, the respondents uential action were completed w supplementary affidavit was fi ion application. Accordingly, tion that the charge memoran atically quashed in respect of dents further rely upon the judi ment to initiate criminal proceed hstanding the quashing of the d of inordinate delay. They ma did not preclude the department n against the applicants and the udulent appointments.

of the same collusive exercise, d by the applicants before the hey dispute the binding effect of hat it was obtained on the basis uments. departmental proceedings, the ted an enquiry pursuant to the in Original Application No. cation seeking extension of time contend that the enquiry and within the stipulated period and iled seeking withdrawal of the they dispute the applicants’ ndum dated 29.12.2016 stood the concerned applicants. The cial observations permitting the dings where fraud is suspected, e charge memorandum on the aintain that the earlier judicial from setting the criminal law in e officials allegedly involved in

, e f s e e . e d d e

d e e , e l n n Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench E. The re 24.05.2 94 of alleging and cri under s the BS crimina service Accord safegua the inv conside circum order d dated 2 investig not in automa F. In view the app subsequ which espondents justify the impug 2019 on the ground that Deogha 2019 was registered pursuant g offences relating to forgery, ch iminal conspiracy. They submit suspension in accordance with SNL Conduct, Discipline and A al case was under investigation e was considered prejudicial to ding to the respondents, the ard departmental records and pr estigation. They further state tha ering the applicants’ representat stances, recommended continu dated 20.08.2019. They also rely 26.06.2019, which required the a gating officer, and contend that t validate the pending crimina atic revocation of suspension. w of the foregoing submissions plicants’ initial appointments, g uent regularization are tainted b warrant investigation indepen gned suspension order dated ar Town Police Station Case No. to the departmental complaint heating, criminal breach of trust that the applicants were placed Rules 30(1)(b) and 30(1)(c) of Appeal Rules, 2006, since the and their continued presence in o the interests of the company. suspension was intended to revent further interference with at the competent authority, after tions and the relevant facts and uation of their suspension vide upon the anticipatory bail order applicants to cooperate with the the grant of anticipatory bail did al investigation or necessitate s, the respondents maintain that grant of Temporary Status and by alleged fraud and collusion, ndently of the earlier service- d . t t d f e n . o h r d e r e d e t d , - Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench related issued u and to judicial proceed challen of the O

4. as mention taken by th i. T p r f s r r S ii. T d f o proceedings. They contend t under the applicable BSNL rule facilitate an impartial investi l orders do not bar the instituti dings. Accordingly, the respon nge to the suspension order dated Original Application as being dev Applicant has filed a short re ned in the written statement. F he applicant:- The applicants, in their rejoinder pendency of the present Origina revoked the suspension order from Annexure A/10 Serie submitted representations dated requesting payment of salary fo remained under suspension, as Series. The applicants further contend t dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure A/ for payment of salary for the outcome of FIR No. 094/2019.

that the suspension order was s, in the interest of the company igation, and that the previous ion or continuation of criminal ndents oppose the applicants’ d 24.05.2019 and seek dismissal void of merit. ejoinder and countered the facts Following are the main grounds r, have submitted that during the al Application, the respondents r on 28/29.10.2020, as evident

s. Thereafter, the applicants d 02.12.2020 and 07.12.2020, or the period during which they s contained in Annexure A/11 that the respondents, vide order /12 Series), rejected their claim suspension period pending the They have challenged the said s y s l ’ l s s e s t s , y

r m e d Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench d s F s r c

5. responden considered conclusion

a. On con written first re adjudic respond applica whethe allowan outcom order d the BSN

b. It is a suspens decision as illegal, arbitrary, unju settled principles of law, assertin FIR cannot, by itself, deprive suspension period. Accordingl respondents’ decision to with conclusion of the criminal procee We have heard the counse nts and also perused the materia d the matter in its entirety n: nsideration of the pleadings of t n statement and the rejoinder fi elief as contained in Para 8.1 cation as the suspension order h dents on 28/29.10.2020 as per ants themselves. The principal i er the respondents were justifie nces for the period of suspens me of Deoghar Town P.S. Case N dated 06.04.2021 has been passed NL Conduct, Discipline and App an admitted position that the sion vide order dated 24.05.

ust, punitive and contrary to the ng that the mere pendency of an an employee of salary for the ly, the applicants dispute the hhold such payment until the edings. els for applicants as well as al available on record. We have and arrived at the following the applicants, the respondents’ iled by the applicants, the very of the O.A. does not require has already been revoked by the Para 3 of the rejoinder of the issue requiring determination is ed in withholding the pay and sion of the applicants until the No. 94 of 2019, and whether the d in accordance with Rule 32 of peal Rules, 2006. applicants were placed under 2019 in connection with the e n e e e s e g

y e e e s d e e f r e Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench aforesa revoked represe which on the challen an FIR allowan

c. Rule 3 specific reinstat and no granted paid. R the e determ subject

d. In the p ground and co regular the ple salary u aid criminal case and that their d on 28/29.10.2020. The ap entations seeking payment of sa were rejected by the responden grounds of pendency of the crim nged the said decision on the gro R cannot, by itself, justify indefin nces. 2 of the BSNL Conduct, Disc cally deals with the treatment of tement. Under Rule 32(1)(a), wh o penalty under Rule 33 is im d full pay and allowances, less th Rule 32(1)(b), on the other hand mployee is not fully exo mination of the proportion of p t to the conditions prescribed t present case, the respondents hav d that the criminal investigation llusion in the applicants’ initia rization. However, the order dat eadings, appears to defer the d until the outcome of the crimina r suspension was subsequently pplicants thereafter submitted alary for the suspension period, nts vide order dated 06.04.2021, minal case. The applicants have ound that the mere pendency of nite withholding of their pay and ipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 f the period of suspension upon here an employee is exonerated mposed, the employee may be he subsistence allowance already d, deals with a situation where onerated and provides for pay and allowances admissible, therein. ve justified their decision on the relates to alleged fraud, forgery al appointments and subsequent ted 06.04.2021, as described in decision regarding payment of al case, without demonstrating y d , , e f d n d e y e r , e y t n f g Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench whethe 32(1)(b not, by under t discreti individ

e. In view to rem conside period Conduc of the p circum the sta already speakin represe the resp shall b treating claim in The afo Rules,

32. er the claim was independ b). The mere registration or pen y itself, determine the proportion the said rule. The competent aut ion in accordance with the appli dual case. w of the rival submissions, this T mit the matter to the competent eration of the applicants’ claim from 24.05.2019 to 28/29.10 ct, Discipline and Appeal Rules period of suspension. The compe stances leading to the suspension atus of the criminal proceedin y paid and all relevant records, ng order after affording the entation. Admittedly, this exerci pondents as per the records bef be taken in accordance with th g the pendency of the FIR as the ndefinitely because this is not sti foresaid Rule 32 of the BSNL C 2006 is being reproduced as un TREATMENT OF THE PER

ently examined under Rule ndency of a criminal case does n of pay and allowances payable thority is required to exercise its icable rules and the facts of the Tribunal considers it appropriate t authority of BSNL for fresh for pay and allowances for the .2020. Rule 32 of the BSNL s, 2006 deals with the treatment etent authority shall consider the n, the grounds for its revocation, ngs, the subsistence allowance and shall pass a reasoned and applicants an opportunity of ise has not been undertaken by fore this Tribunal. The decision he applicable rules and without sole ground for withholding the ipulated in the said Rule. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal nder: RIOD OF SUSPENSION

e s e s e e h e L t e , e d f y n t e l Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM

Patna Bench (1). com allo

(a) ) pen whi susp and

(b) com

(2) I from und duty

6. remitting reasoned d of a copy merits of t submit th competent

7. S (Kumar du/-

When the employee under mpetent authority may grant owance for the period of suspens If the employee is exonerated alties mentioned in Rule 33, ich he would have been ent pended, less the subsistence al d, If otherwise, such proportion mpetent authority may prescribe. In a case falling under sub-cla m duty will be treated as a perio der sub-clause (b) it will not b y unless the competent authority Accordingly, the Original A the matter to the competent au decision within a period of three of this order. It is clarified that the claim of the applicants. The heir representations and supp t authority. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rajesh Chandra) ( Member (A)

suspension is reinstated, the him the following pay and sion; d and not awarded any of the the full pay and allowances titled to if he had not been llowance already paid to him; of pay and allowances as the . ause (a), the period of absence od spent on duty. Incase falling e treated as a period spent on y so directs. Application is disposed of by uthority for consideration and a months from the date of receipt t no opinion is expressed on the applicants shall be at liberty to porting documents before the Sd/- (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member(J)

e d e s n ; e e g n y a t e o e ) Digitally signed by DURGES H UTTAM DURG ESH UTTAM