Parimal Bhanuprasad Pandit vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

er : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V.Bh grievance of the applicant in Authority, vide order dated 06 e penalty of 25% cut in his mont h has subsequently been affirm ated 21.09.2023 and further uph ated 07.10.2024 while rejecting present OA under Section 19 o he applicant is seeking the follow “(A) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pl aside the order dated 06.0 disciplinary authority impo the applicant, order dated 21 appellate authority and o passed by the review auth grounds and documents e record. (B) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pl and further orders that m proper.” F FACTS OF THE CASE applicant was initially appoint 01.03.1982 and was subsequent 4.06.2010 after qualifying the d n of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limi tion with effect from 01.10.200 ules (Annexure A/2 refer). He fficer and, at the time of his volu g as Accounts Officer (Cash) ecom District, Himmatnagar, Gu applicant’s voluntary retireme morandum dated 05.10.2020 unde hairavia, Member (J) n the instant OA is that the 6.02.2023, has illegally imposed thly pension for a period of five med by the Appellate Authority held by the Reviewing Authority g his review petition. Therefore, of the Administrative Tribunals wing reliefs:- leased to quash and set 02.2023 passed by the osing major penalty on 1.09.2023 passed by the rder dated 07.10.2024 hority considering the evidences available on leased to pass any other may be deemed fit and

ted as Senior Telecom Office tly appointed as Junior Accounts departmental examination. Upon ited (BSNL), he was absorbed in 00 under Rule 37A of the CCS was subsequently promoted as untary retirement on 31.01.2020, in the office of the General ujarat Telecom Circle BSNL. ent, the respondents issued a er Rules 36 and 61 of the BSNL

e d e y y , s e s n n S s , l a L

SEEMA SANTHOSH

Conduct, Dis BSNL CDA the period fro 2.3 After t the Presentin Officer subm categorically applicant) as 2.4 Therea Inquiry Offic (Annexure-A report on 12. that the charg of the eviden the charge of 2.5 The D applicant vid invited his re dated 08.08. Inquiry Offi collection an assigned to t that the mon of the Accou 2.6 The ap configured in 2018, as it franchisees a prescribed b deficiencies, order dated 0 :3: scipline and Appeal Rules, 200 Rules, 2006’), in respect of all om 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2020 (A the completion of the regular in ng Officer to submit his brief a mitted his brief on 27.01.2022, y stated that the charges leveled "NOT PROVED" (Annexure A after, the applicant submitted cer on 28.02.2022 objecting th A/5 refer). However, the Inqu .05.2022 (Annexure A/6) to the ges are proved though the Prese nces reached to the conclusion t fficer i.e. applicant has not been p Disciplinary Authority furnishe de Memorandum dated 13.06.2 epresentation. The applicant sub .2022 (Annexure A/8 refer), cer and asserting, inter alia, nd deposit of cheques receive the concerned Customer Servic itoring of franchisee transaction unts Officer (CMTS). pplicant further contended that n conformity with the applicable permitted the issuance of C- against a single cheque and en bank-guarantee limits. Accord together with the allocation of 01.05.2015, had not been properl

6 hereinafter referred to as ‘the leged irregularities pertaining to Annexure A/3 refer). quiry, the Inquiry Officer asked and accordingly, the Presenting wherein the Presenting Officer against the charged officer (the A/4 refer). detailed defense brief to the he charges levelled against him uiry Officer submitted inquiry e Disciplinary Authority holding enting Officer after due analysis that the charges levelled against proved. ed the inquiry report to the 022 (Annexure A/7 refer) and bmitted a detailed representation disputing the findings of the that the duties relating to the ed from franchisees had been ce Centre (CSC) in-charges and ns fell within the responsibilities the ERP system had not been e Sales and Distribution Policy, TOP UP material to multiple nabled transactions beyond the ding to him, these systemic f duties under the departmental ly considered during the inquiry.

e o d g r e e m y g s t e d n e e n d s n , e e c l

SEEMA SANTHOSH

2.7 The D pension cut applicant's a (Annexure (Annexure A Hence, this O

3. Pursua their reply to

4. CONT 4.1 Learne impugned or evidence and Accounts Of charges. 4.2 It is s (Cash) the f receipt of c Himmatnaga including the

(a) reconc at Him

Himatn 1.5.20 cash d Distric

(b) of thes were b to the B :4: Disciplinary Authority neverth vide order dated 06.02.2023 appeal (Annexure A/10 refer) A/11 refer), and his review A/12 refer) was rejected on 07.1 OA. ant to notice issued by this Tribu which the applicant has also file TENTIONS OF THE APPLICA ed counsel Mr.Dileep B Rana fo rders suffer from non-application d failure to appreciate the distin fficer (Cash), the Accounts Off submitted that the applicant wa following procedure was prevai cash and deposition of cheq ar BSNL and the same was follo e applicant :- All the work of cash and ciliation was being done by the matnagar office till 30.4.2015. Due to curtail the expenditu nagar SSA the Himatnagar Adm 15 (Annexure A/14) and accord depositing was handed over to t ct. There were 11 such CSCs in Him se CSCs were JTO level officer being received by them in the ca BSNL account at their places.

heless imposed the aforesaid 3 (Annexure A/1 refer). The ) was rejected on 21.09.2023 w petition dated 22.10.2023 10.2024 (Annexure A/13 refer). unal, the respondents have filed ed rejoinder. ANT or the applicant submits that the n of mind, disregard of material nction between the duties of the ficer (CMTS) and the CSC in- as working as Account Officer iling in respect to handling the que and its reconciliation at owed by the staff of the BSNL d cheque depositing and its Accounts Officer (Cash) sitting ure to bring the cheques to ministration issued an order dated dingly the work of cheque and the CSC incharges of the entire matnagar SSA and the incharges r (Gr.B) and all cheques which sh counter were being deposited

d e

. d e l e - r e t L s g o d d e s h d

SEEMA SANTHOSH

(c) were c the dep Office

(d) custom franch the tem

(e) one Ac of pay franch in Him which non-av (Cash) BSNL 4.3 It is su of non-depos BSNL. In thi charge of Hi Himatnagar received by t 4.4 It is s Himatnagar available in AO(Cash), A Himatnagar Gujarat Circ officers of BS 4.5 Learne dated 01.05 :5: Due to the introduction PAN cleared from that CSC areas. Th position of cheques and its clear rs. It is submitted that BSNL wa mers of Landline/broadband, isee payments, Leased Line pay mporary advances and staff paym To look after the payments of ccounts Officer (TR) was posted yment and as such for Mobile po isee payment one AO(CMTS) w matnagar. They will look after were deposited by the CSC and vailability of funds, they will ) for issuing notice to the subsc Accounts. ubmitted that the subject matter o sit of cheques received by the ap is regard, it is stated that the che imatnagar CSC and it was the i.e. Himatnagar Civil CSC, to them. stated that ERP system was in also. The details of the che the ERP system and it can b AO(TA), CAO, DGM(Fin.), and GM (Mktg-CM) , DGM le, Ahmedabad and the necessa SNL Corporate Office in BSNL. ed counsel contended that, purs .2015, the responsibility for

India clearance, these cheques he CSC incharges will intimate rance to the concerned Accounts as receiving payments from the Post-paid subscribers, Mobile yments etc balance payment of ment by cheque or cash. Landline/Broad band segments, d, who will look after the receipt ost paid subscribers and Mobile was posted and both were sitting r the clearance of the cheques d if any cheques bounced due to intimate the same to the AO cribers and its reconciliation of of the chargesheet was in respect pplicant from the franchisees of eques were received by CSC In- duty of the CSC in-charge of deposit the cheques and cash n full force in Gujarat and in ques and cash received were be verified by the AO(CMTS), DGM(CM-Mktg), GMTD, of M(CA), PGM(Fin), CGMT, of ary CM Marketing and Finance . suant to the departmental order depositing cash and cheques

s e s e e f , t e g s o O f t f - f h n e , f f e r s

SEEMA SANTHOSH

collected at t The applican assigned to th accounting f deposit and r asserts, assig 4.6 Learne circulating m balances und the prime du received by deposited in Himatnagar a facts continu GMTD. But 4.7 It is fa policy, 2018( was the duty Officer” is n Annexure A/ concerned, i DGM(CM-M Therefore, le against the ap time, is not te 4.8 It is su concerned w monitoring th they will also the value of b

4.9. Further, cheques to th :6: the CSCs had been assigned to nt's role, according to him, w he Accounts Officer (Cash), incl functions. The responsibility realisation of cheques relating to gned to the Accounts Officer (CM ed counsel further submits that monthly statements showing the der the signatures of the applica uty of the AO(CMTS) to ensu the CSC Incharges in respect the Bank and intimate the status and also to AO(Cash) for recon uously about the non-depositio t no action was taken by the high act that as per clause (d) at page N (Annexure-A/16), the duty of ch y of Accounts Officer. It is subm not AO(Cash), but it is AO(CM /14, as all the CSC Incharges tho in respect of CM activities, th Mktg) of the District. earned counsel for the applicant s pplicant that the cheques were n enable and the same is against th ubmitted that as per clause 9(iii who will accept payment by c he cheque as per time frame giv o ensure that the value of chequ bank guarantee at any time’. it is the duty of CSC Incharge he bank and not by the applicant.

the respective CSC in-charges. was confined to the functions luding reconciliation and related for monitoring the collection, o franchisee transactions was, he MTS). the applicant's office had been e outstanding cash and cheque ant and the superior officer. It is ure that the cheques and cash of the franchisee payments are s to the higher officers of BSNL nciliation. He was intimating the on of the cheques to IFA and her authorities. No.7 of the Sales & Distribution heque deposition of CM material mitted that the word “Accounts MTS) as per the order placed at ough were reporting to their DE hey report to AO(CMTS) and submits that the charges levelled not deposited by applicant in the he policy in vogue.

i) of S & D policy The officers cheque will be responsible for ven in para(ii) of the policy and ues outstanding does not exceed e concern to receive and credit .

. s d , e n e s h e L e d n l s t E d d e s r d d t

SEEMA SANTHOSH

4.10 It is su pending with 25.9.2018 an bounced back 4.11 In this r received the b Negotiable In 4.12 To buttr also argued th

(a) That, th Authority ser working as connected in and its moni respective CS bank.

(b) It is fu sales and dis Officer to re Account of C post paid pr cheques. It i responsibility credit the col of cheques” distribution p

(c) It is s Officer i.e. A is not at all re

(d) That, the authority ser :7: ubmitted that the GMTD order t h them i.e. around 189 chequ nd cheques were deposited on 2 k on 28.9.2018. regard, it is stated that when the bounced cheque on 30.9.2018, h nstruments Act after taking the a ress the aforesaid submission, le hat : he disciplinary authority, appe riously erred in not appreciating AO( Cash) during the allege respect of the receipt of cheque itoring as the CM materials we SC and the cheque were collecte urther submitted that as per claus stribution policy, 2018, it will be emit the collection from franch Company on as and when purc roduct) are made by franchisee is also narrated in similar clau y of Accounts officer to remit th llection Account of company on as stipulated in Clause No.C (e) policy-2012. ubmitted that to look after the AO(CMTS) was posted in the Him esponsible for this activity. disciplinary authority, the appel riously erred in not appreciatin the CSCs to deposit the cheques ues from months’ together on 27.8.2018 and all cheques were AO (Cash), the applicant herein he issued notice under 138 of the approval from GMTD. earned counsel for the applicant llate authority and Reviewing g the fact that the applicant was ed period and is not anyway e from the franchisee, its deposit ere issued by CSC in charge or ed by them and deposited in the se No.C (d) on page no.7 of CM e the responsibility of Accounts hisee to the credit of collection chase of BSNL product (except e and ensure the realization of use stating that “It will be the he collection from franchisee to n daily basis and also realization ) on page N0.6 of CM sales and ese activities, another Accounts matnagar SSA and the applicant llate authority and the reviewing ng the fact that to monitor the

s n e n e t g s y t r e M s n t f e o n d s t g e

SEEMA SANTHOSH

cheque coll Officer(CMT monitored th not the work

(e) That, t collection of the Account charge from being follow 1.5.2015 (An

(f) The r supposed to dated 1.5.201 Further, it is he had not h deposition is doing the wo subsequently

(g) That t respect of th month for the

(h) The SDE(Vigilan cheques in H evidence to p got dishonou

(i) The r were not con

(j) The re 2018 and as is very clear :8: ection and its deposit and TS) under DGM (CM-Mktg) i he cheque collection, its deposit of the applicant who was workin the respondent authorities ough f cheque, its entry in the ERP an Officer(Cash) and the same wor the year 2015 vide order dated wed in Himmatnagar SSA from nnexure-A/14). respondent No.2 didn’t consid deposit the cheques received fr 15 (Annexure A/14.) stated that the cheques were ly handed over the cheques to AO s lying with the CSC incharge f ork were transferred from AO(C y they had given the same work a the office of the applicant was he cash and cheque balances e information of all concerned. (A investigating officer in thi nce) of Himatnagar SSA confi Himatnagar SSA was not becaus prove that due to delay in depo ured. espondent No.2 didn’t consider nfigured as per the S&D policy, 2 espondent No.2 didn’t consider per clause g(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv rly stated that “to purchase mat its clearance, one Accounts is posted and he should have and its clearance as the same is ng as AO(Cash). ht to have appreciated that the d its deposit are not the work of rk was transferred to the CSC In d 01.05.2015 and the same was m the date of the order dated der that the applicant was not rom the franchisees as per order ying with the CSC incharge and O(Cash) as the duty of cheque for which many staff who were Cash) section to SDE (prov) and at CSC Himatnagar. issuing monthly information in under DGM’s signature every Annexure A/15). s case i.e. the SW-1, the firmed the delay in deposit of se of AO(Cash) and there is no ositing the cheques, the cheques r the fact that the ERP systems 2018. the fact that as per S&D policy

v) at page No.15 of the policy, it terial against cheque franchisee

s e s e f n s d t r d e e d n y e f o s s y t e

SEEMA SANTHOSH

will have to more than th then purchas guarantee is this bank g requirement given for Rs. to the franch franchisee ar should give had 2 othe incorporated their account for all the th along with A

(k) It is th and figures a into the inqu and explain t case, the sta Divisional E deposit of th is available t deposed that practice since categorically much relevan facility to th Head while e prevented th franchisees o Moreover, al properly thes :9: provide a separate bank guara he period of agreement and also se material of value up to th separate from PBG. Circles wi guarantee which may be equ in the multiple of Rs.50,000/-. .30 lakhs against which material hisee against the cheque. Moreov re individual and if all franchisee separate PBG. Here in this cas er franchisee-ship at Bayad with the main franchisee and i ts were jointly done and the ma hree franchisees (as explained i Annexure A/17). he duty of the Inquiry officer to and also take into consideration uiry, as well as the deposition of them in his report, before concl ate witness, SW-1, who was th Engineer (Vigilance) stated befo e cheques is not because of AO that the cheques got dishonoured the delay in depositing the cheq e 2016. Moreover, the other depo y stated that the ERP system w nt guidelines available in S&D P he franchisees up to their PBG/ exceeding the credit limit etc an he CSC Incharge to give C on a sing cheques, which is t ll these witnesses confirmed tha se types of irregularities could ha antee with validity of 180 days o stated that the franchisees can he Bank guarantee. The bank ill have to decide upper cap on uivalent to 7 days inventory Here the Bank Guarantee was up to Rs.2.39 crores were given ver, there is another rule that all e wanted credit r 13 facility, they se, through the main franchisee and Himatnagar, they were ssued material on credit and all in franchisee issued one cheque in Para 5(L) of the application o analyse the case with all facts the facts, which he had brought f the State witnesses in the case, luding his analysis. Here in this he investigating officer I.e. Sub re the Inquiry that the delay in O(Cash) and there is no evidence d due to the applicant as well he ques in Himatnagar is a common osition of SW-4 and SW-6, both was not configured incorporate Policy regarding extending credit /taking approval from the SSA nd also the system should have TOP UP balance to infinite the basic problem of the case. at if the ERP system configured ave been avoided.

s n k n y s n l y e e l e n s t , s b n e e n h e t A e e . d

SEEMA SANTHOSH

(l) Moreo Franchisee M AO(CMTS) years, the DG officers who charge sheete

(m) That, AO(CMTS) w with the ban Atul Bhanda two increme Authority wh impose majo charge. It is f whom the d punished w treatment, he

(n) That t old and it wa organisation undertaking a the field leve of depositing In Himatnag Junior Teleco the duty of th To verify and The AO(Cas report and ac report in resp to all higher that while fo franchisees i :10: over, the working employees Manager got stoppage of two got a minor penalty and got stop GM(Fin) got 5% deduction of p o were actually involved viz., ed. the appellate authority oug was supposed to look after all th nk and realization of the bank b ari AO (CMTS) was given a min nts for two years by the same hich clearly shows discriminator or penalty on the applicant who further submitted that all other si disciplinary proceedings were t with minor penalties which ence requires to be quash and set the rules which had been brough as for the Government organisa and implementation of ERP, an and had the power to take their o el, the GMTD on 1.5.2015 (Ann g the cheques and the same was gar SSA, there is one CSC nam om Officer, who is class II offic his officer was to deposit the ch d monitor another Accounts Offi sh) came to know when the C ccordingly the bank reconciliatio pect of the non-deposition of che r authorities including AO(CMT forfeiting the bank guarantee th s wrong. Everything was done t like the CSC incharge, the increments for two years, the ppage of two increments for two pension for two years. But some DGM, GMTD, were not even ght to have appreciated that hese works of collection, deposit but the said officer namely Shri nor chargesheet and stoppage of inquiry officer as Disciplinary ry treatment by the authority to o is not responsible for the said imilarly situated officers against taken by the department were clearly proves discrimination aside in the interest of justice. ht by the respondents are of very ation. Due to become a business nd being a Government of India own decision for the business at nexure- A/14) changed the rules entrusted to the CSC incharges. mely Himatnagar Civil and one cer posted as CSC incharge and heque in respect of CM material. icer I.e. AO(CMTS) was posted. SC incharge gave the monthly on was done by the AO(Cash). A eques were issued by AO(Cash) TS). With respect to the charge he applicant divided into three through ERP and the only input

e e o e n t t i f y o d t e n y s a t s . e d . . y A ) e e t

SEEMA SANTHOSH

is the cheque automatically issuing C TO which was ex

(o) That, reached to th i.e. applicant have been cl was presentin stated that t proved.That NOT PROVE stated in thei Inquiry Offi inquiry repor

(p) That, not accepting charge offic Government giving any re against the pr

(q) That t put forward b that, there w guard the int deposition / categorically relevant guid facility to th head while prevented th franchisees o all the State W :11: e number. When the cheque num y bifurcated with the three fran OP UP to the franchisee, the C xplained by me in detail in para 5 the Presenting Officer (PO) afte he conclusion that the charges le t herein has not been proved. In losed at that point of time itself ng the case on behalf of the disc the charge leveled against the the Presenting officer submitted ED. But when the Presenting O r brief that the charges are not pr cer to give charge-wise reason rt as “PROVED”. the inquiry officer should have g the finding of presenting off cer, but the inquiry officer b of India and working in BSN easons for his conclusion that th rovisions of BSNL CDA Rules, the IO in his report ignored man by the applicant vide his defense as no control / restrictions avail terest of BSNL. This aspect is v cross examination by the S y stated that, the system was not delines available in the S&D po he franchisees up to their PBG/ exceeding the credit limit etc. he CSC incharge to give C- on a single cheque, which is the Witnesses confirmed that if the E

mber (O) inserted in the system it nchisees, because in ERP while CSC incharge made such entry, 5(L). er due analysis of the evidences eveled against the charge officer n such cases, the inquiry should f as the Presenting Officer who ciplinary authority categorically Charged Officer as not been d the brief stating the charges are Officer and the Charged Officer roved, it is the prime duty of the ns why he had concluded the e given reasons as to why he is ficer as well as the defense of eing a HAG level officer of NL had just concluded without he charges are proved, which is 2006and CCS (CCA) Rules. ny important facts and evidences e brief. One among the very fact lable in the ERP system to safe- very much transpired during the SW-1, SW-4 and SW-6, they t configured incorporating much olicy regarding extending credit taking approval from the SSA Also the system should have -TOP UP balance to infinite basic problem of the case, Even ERP system configured properly

t e , s r d o y n e r e e s f f t s s t - e y h t A e e n y

SEEMA SANTHOSH

this type of i but also in ot

(r) That, SW-1 (Inve confirmed th because of A on record to dishonored a officer is not

(s) It is subm

(i) the the BS PBG g

(ii) On bifurca

(iii) th charge 1.5.20 incharg AO(CM

(t) That deposit the reconciliation Here in this was given to monitor the work of AO( by the AO(T

(u) In the franchisee w franchisee w further subm through the monitor daily :12: irregularity could have been avo ther SSAs of India also. the authority ought to have app estigating officer) i.e. SDE(v hat the delay in deposit of cheq AO(Cash). Moreover, there is no prove that due to delay in dep and therefore it was concluded guilty for delay in depositing th mitted that: e configuration of ERP was not SNL, where the credit facility to b given by them and not “infinite” ne franchisee- one cheque form ating one cheque into three franc he Inquiry Officer didn’t give es, when the PO had “Not prove 15 on which the work of chequ ges and in respect of Mobile rec MTS) and not AO(Cash). as per General Financial Rules cheques and making payment n of the accounts are to be done case, due to introduction of ER o the CSC incharges .e.f. 1.4.20 receipt of the cheques and its (CM TS) of the District. The rec elecom Accounts). e facts of the present case, the was for Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty la was supposed to get the C-TOP mitted that in BSNL, the C TOP ERP system, through the CS y about the issuance and the rece oided not only in Himmatnagar preciated that the deposition of vigilance), Himmatnagar who que in Himmatnagar SSA is not o documentary evidence placed posit of cheque, the cheque got d by observing that the charge he cheque. according to the S&D Policy of be extended up to the amount of

mula to be observed instead of chisees, any reasons while proving the ed” the case (4) the order dated e deposit was given to the CSC charge the work was entrusted to s, the DDO is the authority to ts to the parties etc. And the e by the Accounts Officer (TA). RP, the work of cheque deposit 015 as per Annexure A/14. To deposition in the bank was the onciliation work was to be done e bank guarantee given by the akhs) and as per this clause, the P up for that amount only. It is P UP delivery was being done C and the AO(CMTS) has to eipt of the cash/cheque properly.

r f o t d t e f f f e d C o o e . t o e e e e s e o .

SEEMA SANTHOSH

But in the ER Therefore, in Manager, C whereas actu configuration policy, which

(v) That w franchisee ha Himatnagar d franchisee M Communicat TOP UP for the cheque N the AO(Cash the bank Communicat cleared again of the ERP n received fro 14.02.2018 to

(w) That, th system to all PBG submitt so and the applicant he system was n anomalies an without verif

(x) That, th deposition of in depositing SSA since 20 :13: RP system, the amount of C TOP n Himatnagar SSA as per th TOP UP recharges were being d ually it would have been only n of ERP is not according to t h is annexed as Annexure A/16. whenever the franchisee purchase as to issue one cheque. There during the period from 2016 to M/s.Reliance communications tions (total 3 franchisee) issued different franchisee. The ERP s No.XXX/A, XXX/B and XXX/C

h) and other finance officers. W guarantee against the o tions, the amount outstanding nst that cheque. It is also clearly not according to the policy. A co om the franchisees and its c o 31.03.2020 (Annexure A/17). he disciplinary authority absolut low unlimited C TOP UP Balan ted on cheque and not restricted disciplinary authority punishe rein for other’s fault. This pro not configured as per the S&D nd the applicant is made scape-g fying the record and evidences av he respondent authority ought f SW-1 (Presenting officer) who g of franchisee cheque was com

016. P UP recharge kept as “infinite”. e advice of the then General done for more than Rs.2 crores, y Rs.30,00,000/-. Therefore the the policy decided as per S&D

e the C TOP UP recharge, every were 6 franchisees working in o 2019. In Himatnagar the main (two units) and M/s.A.R. one cheque and requested for C system allowed this and marked C. This fact was not knowing to When the office started to forfeit outstanding of M/s.Reliance of other franchisees were also y speaks the wrong configuration opy of the details of the cheques learance for the period from tely ignored the fact about the nce to the franchisee beyond the d the CSC in charge from doing ed the charge officer i.e. the oves that SD Module of ERP policy, which creates all these goat for imposing major penalty vailable on record. to have appreciated that the o categorically stated that delay mmon practice in Himmatnagar

. l , e D y n n . C d o t e o n s m e e g e P e y e y r

SEEMA SANTHOSH

(y) That, th system allow cheque which

(z) That not Telecom Cir cheques bein PGM(F) had Moreover, th a meeting wi the officers 10.8.2018. U and had no a was under th these facts al

(aa) That, the forfeited on 10.09.2018, around Rs.64

(bb) That, th the appeals b to confirm th

(cc) An emp from Secreta Secretary (C initiated aga No.l, the sam

After i respondent N respondent N have been giv the responde and before :14: e respondent authority ought wed giving C-TOP UP Balance h is a major drawback of the con only finance wing but all offe rcle and BSNL Corporate Off ng collected by the CSC incharg d also talked to GMTD Hi he Chief General Manager of Gu ith the franchisees for early clea of Himatnagar SSA and Finan Under these circumstances, the a authority to ask the technical pe he full control of the GMTD, Him lso before the respondent No.2 to e respondent authorities ought to 11.09.2018 and within 11 the AO(Cash) and other mark 4 Lakhs from the Himmatnagar F e appellate authority has not rec by order dated 21.09.2023 and th he decision of the disciplinary au ployee (applicant) who worked ary (Telecommunications), Gove C) i.e. respondent No.1 herein. inst an employee who was dra me can be initiated by respondent investigation, the respondent No No.1 and subsequently, the resp No.2 to issue chargesheet and a c ven along with the chargesheet. ents. Here in this case, the resp issuing the punishment order to have appreciated that ERP to three franchisee in a single nfiguration of the ERP system. rs of Himatnagar SSA, Gujarat fice knows very well that the ge was not being deposited. The imatnagar in this connection. ujarat Telecom Circle, convened arance of the cheques along with nce Wing of Circle Office on applicant being a junior officer erson to do this and do that who matnagar. The applicant brought o 4 but in vain. o have appreciated that PBG was days i.e. from 30.08.2018 to keting personnel could collect Franchisee. corded any findings for rejecting he order is a non-speaking order uthority. in BSNL and drawing pension ernment of India are ruled by the Any disciplinary action to be awing pension from respondent t No.l only. o.2 had to submit the case to the pondent No.1 will authorise the copy of the authorisation should This procedure not followed by ondent No.2 issued chargesheet r, they took the approval of

P e t e e . d h n r o t s o t g r n e e t e e d y t f

SEEMA SANTHOSH

respondent N order. This i made by the such a case f Hon’ble Trib respondent . matter is pen

(dd) That, proceedings from service time of hear Kumar Sinha of 2024.

(ee) That th decided the pension cut f 4.13 Learne adequate rea that the char report substa documentary explanation f 4.14 The ap witnesses, pa depositing ch lacked the n Policy. 4.15 Learne ground that 13.06.2022 r even before Report. Furth :15: No.l, which can be seen from the is unnatural and therefore, the e respondents in this connection filed before this Hon’ble Tribun bunal had stayed the proceeding No.2 (Zakaria Thomas V/s. Se nding before this Hon’ble Tribun as per the well settled princ can be initiated after the delinq . The applicant craves leave to r ring of the application i.e. Stat a decided by the Hon’ble Apex e respondents without applicat case and had been issued pun for 5 years. ed counsel argues that the Inq asons for disagreeing with the rges were not proved. The appl antially reiterated the allegations y evidence, the testimony of the furnished by him. pplicant also relies upon the d articularly SW-1, SW-4 and SW heques was not attributable to necessary safeguards prescribed ed counsel also questions the fai t the Disciplinary Authority recorded its agreement with the consideration of the applicant' her, it is submitted that the subs e last sentence of the punishment applicant denies the averments

n. It is further submitted that in nal, in O.A. No.265 of 2024, the gs I.e. issuing the orders by the ecretary (C) and BSNL and the al. ciple of law, no disciplinary quent employee or officer retires rely on the said judgment at the te Bank of India versus Navin Court in Civil Appeal No. 1279 tion of mind and mechanically nishment order for 25% of the quiry Officer failed to provide Presenting Officer's conclusion icant maintains that the inquiry s without properly analyzing the departmental witnesses and the depositions of the departmental W-6, to contend that the delay in him and that the ERP system d by the Sales and Distribution irness of the proceedings on the y's Memorandum/letter dated findings of the Inquiry Officer s representation on the Inquiry sequent penalty order, as well as

t s n e e e y s e n y e e n y e e l n m n e d r y s

SEEMA SANTHOSH

the appellate material grou 4.16 Learne has given dis Franchisee comparativel substantial re competence proceedings a 4.17 Learne pensioner w Rs.14,000 w serious finan counsel, the sustain the ch no evidence, be quashed a

5. CONT 5.1 Per co and submits with the BSN opportunities report was fu the Disciplin the material o 5.2 The re Presenting O required to i submissions Therefore, th not proved Inquiry Offic :16: e and reviewing orders, failed unds raised by the applicant. ed counsel for the applicant furt scriminatory treatment, contend Manager and the Accounts ly lesser penalties, while the eduction in pension. He also ra and authorization of the autho affecting his pension after retirem ed counsel for the applicant subm with having Rs.45,000/- pensio were being deducted for non f ncial crunch to manage the fam PO in his written brief admitt harges levelled against the appli therefore, the impugned orders and set aside. TENTIONS OF THE RESPON ontra, the respondents’ learned c that the disciplinary proceeding NL CDA Rules, 2006, after aff s to defend himself. According urnished to the applicant, his rep nary Authority thereafter passed on record. espondents’ learned counsel sub Officer is not binding upon the independently assess the oral a of the Presenting Officer and the he mere fact that the Presenting does not invalidate the contra cer.

to deal meaningfully with the ther submits that the respondent ding that the CSC in-charge, the s Officer (CMTS) received applicant was subjected to a aises an objection regarding the orities to initiate and conclude ment. mits that the applicant herein is a on per month and out of this fault on his part which caused mily. According to the learned ed that there is no evidence to cant, and in fact this is a case of s are bad in law and required to NDENTS counsel opposes the instant OA s were conducted in accordance fording the applicant reasonable to learned counsel, the inquiry presentation was considered, and d the final order on the basis of bmits that the conclusion of the e Inquiry Officer. The latter is and documentary evidence, the e defence of the charged officer. g Officer considered the charges ary conclusion reached by the

e t e d a e e a s d d o f o A e e y d f e s e . s e

SEEMA SANTHOSH

5.3 The re while functio Officer, was collections, th Learne his responsib transactions the bank guar 5.4 It is su the overall m Bank Reconc being the DD been more ca 5.6 It is s Disciplinary them to subm considering t issued the f substantiated 5.7 It is s provided a d remarks of b The Disciplin accordance w there was no respondent compliance w natural justic submissions 5.8 Learne the relevant r raised in the :17: espondents’ learned counsel furth oning as Accounts Officer (Cash s responsible for overall mo heir deposit and the reconciliatio ed counsel also contends that th bilities and did not exercise due c and the subsequent adjustment rantee. ubmitted that Applicant while ca monitoring of cash/cheque collect ciliation Statement is required t DO of Himatnagar SSA. Moreo areful while forfeiting the PBG o submitted that upon careful rev Authority provided the report t mit a representation against the I the charged officer's representat final order based on the grav d. submitted that the Inquiry Offi detailed assessment on each poi both the Presenting Officer (PO) nary Authority has found the I with Rule 36(21)(d) of the BSN o requirement to return the rep BSNL has conducted the with the rule of law, ensuring ce, which are fundamental to t made by the charged officer are ed counsel also submitted that th records, the order of the Discipli appeal and found the penalty to her maintains that the applicant,

h) and Drawing and Disbursing onitoring of cash and cheque on of bank transactions. he applicant failed to discharge care in relation to the franchisee of outstanding amounts against arrying out his official duties as tion and its deposition as well as to be carried out by AO (Cash) over the Applicant should have of other firm. view of the inquiry report, the to the charged officer, allowing Inquiry Officer's findings. After tion, the Disciplinary Authority vity of the charges that were icer, in the inquiry report, has int of allegation, along with the ) and the Charged Officer (CO). nquiry Officer's report to be in NL CDA Rules, and therefore, port to the Inquiry Officer. The departmental proceedings in adherence to the principles of the proceedings. Therefore, the incorrect and misleading. he Appellate Authority examined inary Authority and the grounds o be supported by the evidence.

, g e e e t s s ) e e g r y e s e . n , e n f e d s .

SEEMA SANTHOSH

The Review relevant reco 5.9 Relyin SCC 177, an 749, the resp appeal over t own assessm

6. Rejoin 6.1 In reb submissions, AO(CMTS) Incharges in and intimate to AO(Cash) Though months, bein was intimatin GMTD ever authorities. 6.2 He sub statements, th franchisee t consideration 6.3 Learne officer to ana not beyond i witness, SW Engineer (Vi cheques is n that the chequ :18: wing Authority, after considerin ords, likewise found no ground fo ng upon Union of India v. Parm d B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of I pondents’ learned counsel submit the findings recorded in a depar ment of the evidence merely becau nder by the Applicant buttal, the applicant’s learned as noted above, submits tha to ensure that the cheques an respect of the franchisee paym the status to the higher officers for reconciliation. This was not h the facts of the non-depositio ng a junior officer, no action cou ng the facts about the non-depos ry and then. But no action w bmits that the departmental orde he Sales and Distribution Polic transactions were material d n. ed counsel further submits that alysis the evidence surfaced duri it. He cannot act as Prosecutor W-1, who was the investigatin igilance) stated before the Inquir not because of AO(Cash) and th ues got dishonoured due to the a ng the review petition and the or interference. ma Nanda, reported in (1989) 2 India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC ts that this Tribunal cannot sit in rtmental inquiry or substitute its use another view is possible. counsel besides reiterating the at it is the prime duty of the nd cash received by the CSC ments are deposited in the Bank s of BSNL Himatnagar and also done. on of the cheques for atleast 3 uld be taken by the applicant. He sition of the cheques to IFA and was taken by the said higher r dated 01.05.2015, the monthly cy, 2018, and the records of the documents requiring specific t it is the duty of the Inquiry ing the departmental inquiry and

r. In the present case, the state ng officer i.e. Sub Divisional ry that the delay in deposit of the here is no evidence is available applicant as well he deposed that

e

C n s e e C k o e d r y e c y d e l e e t

SEEMA SANTHOSH

the delay in since 2016. Moreov stated that th guidelines av franchisees u exceeding th CSC Incharg cheques, whi witnesses con of irregularit held to be r system. The Disciplinary penalty, whic 6.4 The ap adequately e particularly, acknowledge delayed che unsustainable raised by the

7. We ha pleadings as respondents;

ANALYSIS

8. Since t to observe th the Disciplin based on app and Appellat those factual :19: depositing the cheques in Him ver, the other deposition of SW- he ERP system was not configu vailable in S&D Policy regarding up to their PBG/ taking appro e credit limit etc and also the sy ge to give C TOP UP balance t ich is the basic problem within t nfirmed that if the ERP system ies could have been avoided. Th responsible for any fault or de very said aspect has not been co Authority and erroneously p ch is bad in law. pplicant’s counsel further conten explained how the alleged misco when the departmental wi ed the deficiencies in the ERP que deposits. He maintains t e because the authorities did no applicant in his representation, a ave heard learned counsel for s well as the judgments on wh counsel. this matter pertains to departmen hat it is settled principle of law th nary Authority is the sole judge preciation of evidence are recorde te Authority, normally the Court/ l findings unless it finds that th matnagar is a common practice -4 and SW-6, both categorically ured incorporate much relevant g extending credit facility to the val from the SSA Head while ystem should have prevented the to infinite franchisees on a sing the system. Moreover, all these configured properly these types herefore, the applicant cannot be efault in the departments’ ERP onsidered in its true spirit by the passed the impugned order of nds that the respondents have not onduct was attributable to him, itnesses are stated to have system and the prevalence of that the impugned orders are ot address the material grounds appeal and review petition. r the parties and perused the hich reliance is placed by the ntal proceedings, we deem it apt hat in departmental proceedings, of facts. Once findings of fact, ed by the Disciplinary Authority /Tribunal may not interfere with he recorded findings were based

e y t e e e g e s e P e f t , e f e s e e t , , y h d

SEEMA SANTHOSH

either on no legally unten permitted to Court/Tribun findings reco power of jud its own conc departmental 8.1 In this judgments on the Three Ju Chaturvedi v held as under 8.2 It eme as Senior Te appointed as BSNL under the organisat time of his vo Officer (Cas Himmatnaga 8.3 It is a retirement, th :20: o evidence or that the findings nable. The adequacy or inade be canvassed before the High nal does not sit as an Appella orded during departmental pro dicial review. The Tribunal canno clusion, with regard to the guilt o l authorities. s regard, it is profitable to men n the point of scope of judicial udges Bench of the Hon’ble A v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SC r: “13. The disciplinary authority is t Where appeal is presented, the coextensive power to reapprecia nature of punishment. In a discipl proof of legal evidence and findin not relevant. Adequacy of evid evidence cannot be permitted to b court/tribunal. In Union of India India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 7 this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR the conclusion, upon considera reached by the disciplinary aut suffers from patent error on the based on no evidence at all, a wr issued.” erges from the records that the a elecom Office Assistant on 01. Junior Accounts Officer on 14.0 Rule 37A of the CCS (Pension) tion and was eventually promot oluntary retirement on 31.01.202 sh) in the office of the Gener ar, Gujarat Telecom Circle. also an admitted position that, he respondents initiated disciplin s were wholly perverse and/or equacy of the evidence is not Court/Tribunal, since the High ate Authority, over the factual oceedings, while exercising the ot, normally speaking, substitute of the delinquent, for that of the ntion that by referring catena of review by the Courts/Tribunals, Apex Court in the case of B.C. CC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] the sole judge of facts. appellate authority has ate the evidence or the linary enquiry, the strict ngs on that evidence are dence or reliability of be canvassed before the v. H.C. Goel [Union of 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] R p. 369, para 20) that if ation of the evidence thority, is perverse or e face of the record or rit of certiorari could be (emphasis supplied) applicant was initially appointed .03.1982 and was subsequently 06.2010. Upon his absorption in ) Rules, he continued to serve in ted as Accounts Officer. At the 20, he was working as Accounts ral Manager Telecom District, after the applicant's voluntary nary proceedings against him by

r t h l e e e f ,

d y n n e s , y y

SEEMA SANTHOSH

issuing a cha the BSNL Co alleged irregu 8.4 In the and consider in his written On receipt o analysis and about his in Authority. H Inquiry repo applicant sta representatio applicant her copy of the agreement w applicant to refuted by th In o submission o Officer held fact that the P that the char applicant vi submitted his 8.5 Therea imposed upo for a period rejected by t by rejection dated 07.10.2

9. Having applicant tha :21: arge memorandum dated 05.10.2 onduct, Discipline and Appeal R ularities pertaining to the period present case, undisputedly, the ing the evidence adduced during n brief that charges levelled agai f the said written brief, the Cha averments of the Presenting O nnocence by submitting his de However, as noted herein abov rt dated 12.05.2022 held that t ands proved. Further, it is n on on the said Inquiry report fro rein, the Disciplinary Authority e said Inquiry report to the C with the finding of the Inquiry submit his representation. Th e respondent. other words, the departmenta of the inquiry report dated 12 the charges against the applican Presenting Officer, in his brief d rges were not proved. The inqu de memorandum dated 13.06 s detailed representation dated 08 after, the Disciplinary Authority on the applicant the penalty of 2 of five years. The applicant's ap the Appellate Authority vide or of his review petition by the R 2024. g regard to the submissions adva at the Inquiry Authority acted

2020 under Rules 36 and 61 of Rules, 2006, in respect of certain from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2020. Presenting Officer by referring g the inquiry categorically stated inst the applicant “Not Proved”. arged Officer endorsed the same Officer and explained in details efence brief before the Inquiry ve, the Inquiry Authority, in its the charges levelled against the noticed that before inviting the om the Charged Officer i.e. the y at the time of forwarding the CO has recorded its complete Authority and called upon the his factual matrix has not been al inquiry culminated in the 2.05.2022, wherein the Inquiry nt as proved, notwithstanding the dated 27.01.2022, had concluded uiry report was furnished to the 6.2022, pursuant to which he 8.08.2022. y, vide order dated 06.02.2023, 25% cut in his monthly pension ppeal against the said order was rder dated 21.09.2023, followed Reviewing Authority vide order anced by learned counsel for the as Prosecutor and beyond the

f n

g d . e s y s e e e e e e n e y e d e e , n s d r e e

SEEMA SANTHOSH

scope of qua referring the declared in h applicant an respondent h submission o his defence a Disciplinary passed the im Tribunal hav law laid dow of India, (sup

(i) judici sustai

(ii) suffer

(iii) retire statut

(iv) from

10. So far Inquiry Offic recorded by h the fact tha evidence, had that the charg outset that th Inquiry Offic evidence add However, wh himself conc :22: si-judicial authority, the State W e deposition of the state witne his written brief that the charg nd as such, there is no evide have erroneously imposed the pen of the respondent that the CO wa and have followed the principle Authority by considering the mpugned order and thus, same ve also considered , the pleadings wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou pra), the issues arise for our adju Whether the Inquiry Officer ial role and whether the findin inable in law? Whether the findings recorde r from perversity or are based on Whether the disciplinary pro ement are legally sustainable in tory sanction? and Whether the penalty imposed u arbitrariness, discrimination or d r as issue No.(i) as noted in p cer acted beyond his quasi-judici him are sustainable in law, is co at the Presenting Officer, afte d categorically concluded in his ges against the applicant were no he conclusion of the Presenting cer. The Inquiry Officer is requi duced during the inquiry and here the Presenting Officer, re cluded that the charges are not

Witness the Presenting Officer by ess and the material on record ges are not proved against the nce against the applicant, the nalty upon the applicant and the as granted opportunity to submit of natural justice as well as the representation of the applicant e is just and proper, apart this s on record and the principles of urt in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union udication in the instant case: acted beyond his quasi- ngs recorded by him are ed against the applicant n no evidence? oceedings initiated after n the absence of requisite upon the applicant suffers dis-proportionality? para 9 above, i.e., whether the ial role and whether the findings oncerned, particularly in view of er examining the departmental s written brief dated 27.01.2022 ot proved. We may clarify at the Officer is not binding upon the ired to independently assess the arrive at his own conclusions. epresenting the department, has t proved, the Inquiry Officer is

y d e e e t e t s f n e s f l e e e . s s

SEEMA SANTHOSH

expected to u evidence bef demonstrate, evidentiary b 10.1 In the Inquiry Offi assessment a the charge m evidence, the advanced by contention. A that the fin examination responsibiliti 4 and SW-6 and operated attribution of 10.2 The In was required evaluation of the absence o theory of mi principle enu Srivastava (s that even in upon evidenc at such a con 10.3 We are Inquiry Offic not, by itself supported by rendered wit :23: undertake a particularly careful a fore recording findings contrar through an objective assessmen basis upon which the charges hav present case, the applicant has icer failed to undertake such and instead substantially reiterat memorandum without adequate e depositions of the departmen the applicant. We find conside A perusal of the material referre ndings recorded by the Inqui of the departmental order date ies amongst the concerned office and the manner in which the ER

d. These were not peripheral ma f responsibility for the alleged irr nquiry Officer, while functionin d to maintain impartiality and c f the evidence adduced by the of evidence by conjectures or su isconduct unsupported by the m unciated by the Hon’ble Suprem supra) squarely applies in this r departmental proceedings, a fin ce which would reasonably enab nclusion. e, therefore, of the considered v cer differed from the conclusion f, vitiate the inquiry. However, y a cogent analysis of the materi thout adequately addressing the and reasoned examination of the ry thereto. Such findings must nt of the material on record, the ve been held proved. specifically contended that the an independent and objective ted the allegations contained in ely analysing the documentary ntal witnesses and the defence erable substance in the aforesaid ed to by the applicant indicates iry Officer required a proper ed 01.05.2015, the allocation of ers, the testimony of SW-1, SW- RP/SAP system was configured atters but directly concerned the regularities. ng as a quasi-judicial authority, confine himself to an objective parties. He could not substitute urmises, nor could he construct a material brought on record. The me Court in SBI v. Ajay Kumar regard, wherein it has been held nding of guilt must be founded ble an objective person to arrive view that the mere fact that the of the Presenting Officer would where such disagreement is not al evidence and the findings are relevant defence and evidence,

e t e e e n y e d s r f - d e , e e a e r d d e e d t e ,

SEEMA SANTHOSH

the same w contemplated

11. Now c the findings based on no relates to the irregularities received from to the depart receipt, custo Service Cent applicant ha transactions and the con Distribution P 11.1 The re while functio Officer, was collections, t failed to exer 11.2 In this considerable assign certain of another of general natu established w evidence dem constituting t 11.3 The ap 01.05.2015, w of the respon collected at charges. He h :24: ould fall within the permissib d in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and coming to Issue No. (ii), as noted recorded against the applicant evidence, in our considered op e attribution of responsibility t concerning the collection, dep m franchisees. The applicant's sp tmental order dated 01.05.2015 ody and deposit of cheques and tres had been assigned to the r as further contended that th and credit sales was assigned to ncerned marketing authorities u Policy, 2018. espondents, on the other hand, ha oning as Accounts Officer (Cash s responsible for overall mo their deposit and reconciliation o rcise due diligence in the dischar regard, we find that the question significance. Where the depart n operational responsibilities to fficer cannot be inferred merely f ure of his accounting function with reference to the duties monstrating his involvement and the alleged misconduct. pplicant has placed reliance upo which, according to him, divest nsibility for physical receipt, cu the CSCs and assigned the sa has also relied upon the provisio ble grounds of judicial review d P. Gunasekaran (supra). d in para 10 above, i.e., whether t suffer from perversity or are pinion, the most material issue to the applicant for the alleged posit and realisation of cheques pecific defence is that, pursuant , the responsibility for physical d cash collected at the Customer respective CSC in-charges. The the monitoring of franchisee o the Accounts Officer (CMTS) under the applicable Sales and ave contended that the applicant,

h) and Drawing and Disbursing onitoring of cash and cheque of bank transactions, and that he rge of such responsibilities. n of allocation of duties assumes tmental instructions specifically designated officers, the liability from his designation or from the ns. His responsibility must be actually assigned to him, the d the specific acts or omissions on the departmental order dated ted the Accounts Officer (Cash) ustody and banking of cheques ame to the respective CSC in- ons of the Sales and Distribution

w r e e d s t l r e e ) d , g e e s y y e e e s d ) s - n

SEEMA SANTHOSH

Policy, 2018 franchisees w marketing au 11.4 We fu SW-1, the acknowledge the applican operational p SW-6 have b not configure bank-guarant effected throu 11.5 The ap monthly stat under the sig administrativ established f whether the responsibiliti attributable to 11.6 We ha independent substitute its where materi is allegedly examined wi 11.7 In the challenging question as t view of the d ERP/SAP sy deposit of ch :25: 8, to contend that monitoring was assigned to the Accounts Off uthorities. rther notice that the applicant h Sub-Divisional Engineer ed that the delay in depositing nt and that delayed presentati practice at the CSC level. Similar been relied upon to demonstrate ed to restrict franchisee credit tra tee limits and that certain ad ugh the system. pplicant has also asserted that tements indicating outstanding gnatures of the applicant and th ve authorities, including the IFA from the inquiry record, wou e applicant had discharged t ies assigned to him and whethe o any deliberate omission or fail asten to clarify that this Tribunal re-appreciation of the testimony s own assessment of the depart ial evidence bearing directly upo ignored or not considered, t thin the limited parameters of ju e instant case, the applicant's the adequacy of evidence. R to whether the alleged miscond departmental allocation of respon ystem and the evidence conce heques at the CSC level.

of credit extended to mobile fficer (CMTS) and the concerned has relied upon the testimony of (Vigilance), who allegedly cheques was not attributable to ion of cheques had been an rly, the depositions of SW-4 and e that the ERP/SAP system was ansactions within the prescribed djustments were automatically his office regularly circulated and uncleared cheque balances he superior officer to the higher A and GMTD. Such material, if uld be relevant to determining the accounting and reporting r the alleged irregularities were lure on his part. l is not required to undertake an y of SW-1, SW-4 and SW-6 or to tmental evidence. Nevertheless, on the attribution of misconduct the resulting findings may be udicial review. s defence is not confined to Rather, it raises a fundamental duct was attributable to him in nsibilities, the functioning of the erning the actual handling and

e d f y o n d s d y d s r f g g e n o , t e o l n e d

SEEMA SANTHOSH

11.8 We fin by the Inqui conclusion th upon perusa Reviewing A dealt with in adequately e irregular ext notwithstand by him. 11.9 In this v. Ajay Kum Apex Court h cannot be s allegations m reasonable pe 11.10 We ar against the a between the cannot be su Officer (Cas raised by hi conspicuousl force in the evidence surf of the applic charges were mention that applicant the legal infirmit

12. With r the disciplina in the absen :26: nd that these aspects were requi ry Officer and the Disciplinary hat the applicant had failed to al of the orders passed by th Authorities, we find that such m n a meaningful or reasoned ma explained how the alleged delay tension of franchisee credit wa ding the departmental instruction context, the observations of the ar Srivastava (supra) assume pa has categorically held that findin sustained merely on conjectur must be established by such erson acting objectively to arrive re, therefore, of the considered applicant, insofar as they fail t alleged irregularities and the d ustained merely on the basis o sh) or Drawing and Disbursing im required a specific and obj ly lacking in the impugned ord e submission of the learned faced during the inquiry does no ant and the PO had rightly reco e not proved against the applic t inabsence of evidence to su e finding record by the Disciplin ties. regard to issue No.(iii) as noted ary proceedings initiated after re nce of requisite statutory sanct ired to be specifically examined y Authority before arriving at a discharge his duties. However, he Disciplinary, Appellate and material aspects have not been anner. The authorities have not y in deposit of cheques or the as attributable to the applicant, ns and the evidence relied upon e Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI articular relevance. The Hon’ble ngs in departmental proceedings res or surmises and that the evidence as would enable a e at a finding of misconduct. view that the findings recorded to establish a reasonable nexus duties actually entrusted to him, of his designation as Accounts g Officer. The material defence jective consideration, which is ders. Thus, we find substantial counsel for the applicant that ot prove the alleged mis-conduct orded in its written brief that the cant. At this stage, it is apt to ustain the charges against the nary Authority suffers from the d in para 10 above, i.e., whether etirement are legally sustainable tion, as the applicant has also

d a , d n t e , n I e s e a d s , s e s l t t e o e e r e o

SEEMA SANTHOSH

questioned t disciplinary contending t without obta 9(2)(b)(i) of t 12.1 The re under which be instituted pension rule competent a retirement, co valid initiatio 12.2 In the charge memo after his volu obtained bef were required or otherwise instituted aga 12.3 We find of the author the applican irregularity, p of a substanti absence of requirements initiation and sustained in l

13. With r penalty impo or disproport imposed upo CSC in-char :27: the jurisdictional competence proceedings after his volunta that the charge memorandum aining the requisite prior sanctio the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. espondents were required to e disciplinary proceedings affecti d and continued after his reti es prescribe a mandatory req authority for institution of d ompliance with such requiremen on of proceedings. present case, the applicant ha orandum dated 05.10.2020 was untary retirement and that no pri fore initiation of the proceeding d to demonstrate the existence o establish the legal authority und ainst the applicant after his retire d that the aforesaid objection go rities to initiate disciplinary proc nt. The question cannot be t particularly where the proceedin ial cut in his monthly pension fo a demonstrated compliance s governing post-retirement d continuation of the proceedings law. regard to issue No. (iv), as noted osed upon the applicant suffers fr tionality, as the applicant has fu on him is discriminatory and dis rges, franchisee managers and A

of the respondents to initiate ary retirement on 31.01.2020, dated 05.10.2020 was issued on of the President under Rule stablish the statutory authority ng the applicant's pension could irement. Where the applicable quirement of sanction by the departmental proceedings after nt is a condition precedent to the as specifically pleaded that the issued more than eight months ior sanction of the President was gs. The respondents, therefore, of the requisite statutory sanction der which the proceedings were ement. oes to the root of the jurisdiction ceedings affecting the pension of treated as a mere procedural ngs culminated in the imposition or five years. Accordingly, in the with the applicable statutory disciplinary proceedings, the s against the applicant cannot be d in para 10 above, whether the rom arbitrariness, discrimination urther contended that the penalty sproportionate, inasmuch as the Accounts Officer (CMTS), who

e , d e y d e e r e e s s , n e n f l n e y e e e n y e o

SEEMA SANTHOSH

were alleged transactions whereas the custody of th 13.1 We ar imposed up discriminatio respective ro culpability o determining discriminator 13.2 Howev entrusted wit penalties, wh and reconcili the authoritie the nature o punishment. 13.3 We fu considered i employee. A (supra) and quantum of judicial revie proven misco 13.4 In the attribution o applicant's d independentl

:28: dly entrusted with the operationa in question, were visited with applicant, who had retired from he cheques, was subjected to a su re conscious of the settled pr pon different officials do n on or entitle an employee to cl oles, responsibilities, nature o of the officials concerned ar whether the treatment meted ou ry. ver, where the applicant spe th the actual operational respons hile a retired employee whose r iation functions was visited with es were required to examine the c f the alleged misconduct befor urther observe that the proportio in the context of the misco As held by the Hon’ble Supre State of Karnataka v. Umesh punishment is permissible wit ew, particularly where the pen onduct. present case, having regard to f responsibility and the failure defence, the penalty imposed u ly of the findings upon which it i al responsibilities relating to the comparatively lesser penalties, m service and had no physical ubstantial reduction in pension. rinciple that different penalties not, by themselves, establish laim parity in punishment. The of misconduct and degree of re relevant considerations for ut to an employee is arbitrary or cifically alleges that officials sibilities were subjected to lesser role was confined to accounting h a substantially higher penalty, comparative responsibilities and re determining the quantum of onality of punishment has to be onduct established against the eme Court in P. Gunasekaran h (supra), interference with the thin the limited parameters of nalty is disproportionate to the the deficiencies noticed in the e to meaningfully consider the upon him cannot be sustained is founded.

e , l s h e f r r s r g , d f e e n e f e e e d

SEEMA SANTHOSH

14. In vie Application i

(i) Th rep dat

21. are

(ii) Th him

(iii) Th pen pen pen fro

(iv) Th ari acc

15. There sh

16. All pend

(Sanjiv Ku Member

SKV :29: ew of the foregoing analysi is allowed in the following terms he charge memorandum dated 0 port dated 12.05.2022, the Discip ted 06.02.2023, the Appell .09.2023 and the Reviewing Au e hereby quashed and set aside; he applicant shall stand exonerate m under the charge memorandum he respondents are directed to res nsion without the deduction imp nalty order and to refund the am nsion in consequence thereof, w om the date of receipt of a certifie he applicant shall also be enti sing out of the setting aside cordance with the applicable rule hall be no order as to costs. ding MAs, if any, shall also stan umar) r (A)

s and findings, the Original s:- 5.10.2020, the Inquiry Officer's plinary Authority's penalty order ate Authority's order dated uthority's order dated 07.10.2024 ed of the charges framed against m dated 05.10.2020; store the applicant's full monthly posed pursuant to the impugned mount already deducted from his within a period of two months ed copy of this order; itled to consequential benefits of the impugned penalty, in es. d disposed of accordingly.

(Jayesh V. Bhairavia)

Member (J)

l s r d t y d s s s n

SEEMA SANTHOSH