it2025_00894 — Charge Memo issued to the Applicant, absorbed in BSNL, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 came into force – Initiation of fresh enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority is permissible even after receipt of Inquiry Officer's report under Rule 37 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006

IT Rules

Charge Memo issued to the Applicant, absorbed in BSNL, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 came into force – Initiation of fresh enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority is permissible even after receipt of Inquiry Officer's report under Rule 37 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 — The Applicant, facing disciplinary charges, argues that the proceedings were delayed and lacked substantive evidence, citing the collection of documents based on oral directions and a discrepancy in ... — Facts: The Applicant, while serving as an Engineer in Latur Telecom District, BSNL, was charge-sheeted on 7-9-2004 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Two charges were levelled. Under Article-I, it was alleged that during 2000–2002, as a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for hiring vehicles, he recommended the financial bid of a contractor at a significantly inflated rate of ₹ 15.50/km, compared to the Government-approved rate of ₹ 6.50/km plus 20%, causing an alleged loss of ₹ 15 lakhs. Under Article-II, it was alleged that during 1999-2000, he favoured a limited tender for OFC dropping work instead of recommending an open tender, allegedly to benefit certain contractors. The Applicant denied the charges in his reply, dated 2-10-2004. The inquiry Officer concluded inquiry in December 2005 and in his report, dated 26-7-2006, the Inquiry Officer held Article-I partially proved and Article-II not proved. But, after a delay of two years, the Chief General Manager (CGM) ordered a fresh inquiry in 2008 under BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 without citing any legal provision. The Applicant raised his objection citing the illegality of initiating a de novo inquiry without proper authority or rejecting the previous report. The second inquiry concluded on 12-7-2010, again finding Article-I partially proved, noting only that the recommendation of rate lacked proper analysis, without supporting evidence and reasoning and Article-II was not proved. As the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the report within a reasonable time, the Applicant submitted multiple representations and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority issued the punishment order on 30-11-2012. The statutory appeal preferred by the Applicant and the subsequent review petition filed by the Applicant were also rejected. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant strongly contended that the disciplinary proceedings were unjustly delayed-initiated four years after the alleged incident, with the punishment order issued 12 years later- causing serious hardship. He further submitted that the case lacked substantive evidence. To support this, reference was made to the inquiry Report, dated 15-3-2010 which cited Exhibit S-6, a set of RTO circulars. The subsequent inquiry report, dated 12-7-2010 clarified that these Circulars, dated 6-2-1998 and 6-2-2002, only contained rate lists and not the Circular, dated 6-2-1999 as cited in the charge-sheet and they do not contain any analysis. During cross-examination, witness Shri N.M. Pathak admitted that the documents were collected based on oral directions from the then General Manager, Shri M.D. Sonkar, who was also listed as a witness but he never appeared. Hence, the counsel contended that Charge No. 1, even if termed as "partly proved," was not supported by credible evidence and cannot be said to have been proved as no material was available against the Applicant. It was further contended that after submission of first inquiry report, without passing any order under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 37 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, the Disciplinary Authority appointed another Inquiry officer to conduct de novo inquiry which is not permissible under law and whole action is vitiated on this count. The Respondents submitted that during the course of the inquiry, due and reasonable opportunity was provided to the Applicant. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review by this Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings is limited. The disagreement with the first inquiry report was duly communicated to the Applicant vide Letter dated 30-11-2012. It is contended that all actions proposed, initiated, and taken against the Applicant were duly proved and ratified by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). There was no undue delay in passing the final orders. The Respondents further contended that in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal issued in Order, dated 11-2-2014 in O.A. No. 20 of 2014, the Appellate Authority considered the records of the case, findings of the Inquiring Authority, submissions of the Applicant, and upon a comparative assessment of the facts and overall circumstances, passed a reasoned and speaking order rejecting the appeal. Subsequently, the Reviewing Authority, after considering the records, findings of the Inquiring Authority and the Applicant's submissions rejected the review petition after conducting a similar comprehensive assessment. The Respondents further submitted that as per Rule 61 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 2006, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against retiring employees, wherein a cut in pension can be one of the penalties imposed. The Applicant has challenged the legality of the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer by Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Chief General Manager (CGM), who is a higher authority than the original Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the General Manager (Respondent No. 4). In this context, it is submitted that as per Rule 3 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 (Definitions), Clause (7) states that the “Disciplinary Authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule appended to these rules, competent to impose any of the penalties under Rule 33. According to the Schedule, the CGM is a competent authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer. Since the CGM holds a higher post than the General Manager, and the earlier Disciplinary Authority was no longer serving in the same post, the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer by the CGM is valid in accordance with
Note 2-C of the Schedule. Therefore, the Respondents contended that the contention of the Applicant on this issue does not hold merit.

IT Rules

Charge Memo issued to the Applicant, absorbed in BSNL, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 came into force – Initiation of fresh enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority is permissible even after receipt of Inquiry Officer's report under Rule 37 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 — The Applicant, facing disciplinary charges, argues that the proceedings were delayed and lacked substantive evidence, citing the collection of documents based on oral directions and a discrepancy in ... — Facts: The Applicant, while serving as an Engineer in Latur Telecom District, BSNL, was charge-sheeted on 7-9-2004 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Two charges were levelled. Under Article-I, it was alleged that during 2000–2002, as a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for hiring vehicles, he recommended the financial bid of a contractor at a significantly inflated rate of ₹ 15.50/km, compared to the Government-approved rate of ₹ 6.50/km plus 20%, causing an alleged loss of ₹ 15 lakhs. Under Article-II, it was alleged that during 1999-2000, he favoured a limited tender for OFC dropping work instead of recommending an open tender, allegedly to benefit certain contractors. The Applicant denied the charges in his reply, dated 2-10-2004. The inquiry Officer concluded inquiry in December 2005 and in his report, dated 26-7-2006, the Inquiry Officer held Article-I partially proved and Article-II not proved. But, after a delay of two years, the Chief General Manager (CGM) ordered a fresh inquiry in 2008 under BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 without citing any legal provision. The Applicant raised his objection citing the illegality of initiating a de novo inquiry without proper authority or rejecting the previous report. The second inquiry concluded on 12-7-2010, again finding Article-I partially proved, noting only that the recommendation of rate lacked proper analysis, without supporting evidence and reasoning and Article-II was not proved. As the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the report within a reasonable time, the Applicant submitted multiple representations and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority issued the punishment order on 30-11-2012. The statutory appeal preferred by the Applicant and the subsequent review petition filed by the Applicant were also rejected. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant strongly contended that the disciplinary proceedings were unjustly delayed-initiated four years after the alleged incident, with the punishment order issued 12 years later- causing serious hardship. He further submitted that the case lacked substantive evidence. To support this, reference was made to the inquiry Report, dated 15-3-2010 which cited Exhibit S-6, a set of RTO circulars. The subsequent inquiry report, dated 12-7-2010 clarified that these Circulars, dated 6-2-1998 and 6-2-2002, only contained rate lists and not the Circular, dated 6-2-1999 as cited in the charge-sheet and they do not contain any analysis. During cross-examination, witness Shri N.M. Pathak admitted that the documents were collected based on oral directions from the then General Manager, Shri M.D. Sonkar, who was also listed as a witness but he never appeared. Hence, the counsel contended that Charge No. 1, even if termed as "partly proved," was not supported by credible evidence and cannot be said to have been proved as no material was available against the Applicant. It was further contended that after submission of first inquiry report, without passing any order under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 37 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, the Disciplinary Authority appointed another Inquiry officer to conduct de novo inquiry which is not permissible under law and whole action is vitiated on this count. The Respondents submitted that during the course of the inquiry, due and reasonable opportunity was provided to the Applicant. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review by this Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings is limited. The disagreement with the first inquiry report was duly communicated to the Applicant vide Letter dated 30-11-2012. It is contended that all actions proposed, initiated, and taken against the Applicant were duly proved and ratified by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). There was no undue delay in passing the final orders. The Respondents further contended that in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal issued in Order, dated 11-2-2014 in O.A. No. 20 of 2014, the Appellate Authority considered the records of the case, findings of the Inquiring Authority, submissions of the Applicant, and upon a comparative assessment of the facts and overall circumstances, passed a reasoned and speaking order rejecting the appeal. Subsequently, the Reviewing Authority, after considering the records, findings of the Inquiring Authority and the Applicant's submissions rejected the review petition after conducting a similar comprehensive assessment. The Respondents further submitted that as per Rule 61 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 2006, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against retiring employees, wherein a cut in pension can be one of the penalties imposed. The Applicant has challenged the legality of the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer by Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Chief General Manager (CGM), who is a higher authority than the original Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the General Manager (Respondent No. 4). In this context, it is submitted that as per Rule 3 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 (Definitions), Clause (7) states that the “Disciplinary Authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule appended to these rules, competent to impose any of the penalties under Rule 33. According to the Schedule, the CGM is a competent authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer. Since the CGM holds a higher post than the General Manager, and the earlier Disciplinary Authority was no longer serving in the same post, the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer by the CGM is valid in accordance with
Note 2-C of the Schedule. Therefore, the Respondents contended that the contention of the Applicant on this issue does not hold merit.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text