SHIVARUDRA Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Telephone Mechanic at T. Narasipura Telephone Exchange in Mysuru Telecom District. In the year 2000, his controlling authority filed a complaint before the police authority alleging misuse of spare level at the telephone exchange i order to cheat the Department. A complaint was filed before the jurisdictional police. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted on the same issue. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. After holding an enquiry, the charges were held to be proved. He was imposed with a penalty of reducing his pay to the lower grade, to the post of regular Mazdoor. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority, wherein the order of punishment was modified by imposing a punishment of placing the applicant at the pay scale of Rs. 3,625/- with effect from 1-8-2000 (in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- CDA Scale). It was further held that he will not earn next increments with effect from 1-8-2001 for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. That the period of suspension would be considered as such and counted as non-qualifying service. A revision was filed against the said order. The revisional authority again modified the punishment to the extent that the next increment will be withheld for a period of five years with cumulative effect from the day it falls due after 10-3-2003 and that the period of suspension shall not be treated as non-qualifying service. Questioning the same, OA No. 82 of 2014 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended therein that subsequent to the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, the present application before the Tribunal was filed. Therefore, there is no delay in approaching the Tribunal. That the action of the respondents in treating the period of suspension under the provisions of Rule 31(1 )(b) of the BSNL (CDA) Rules 2006 is inappropriate. That the Rule came into force with effect from 10-10-2006. The punishment order reached finality on 4-2-2005. Therefore, the authority could not invoke BSNL (CDA) Rules. That the punishment imposed is not one of the listed punishment under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Tribunal on considering the pleas, rejected the same. Hence, this petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the punishment imposed as per the BSNL (CDA) Rules 2006 is not applicable since the Rule came into effect from 2006 whereas the punishment was imposed on 2- 4-2005. On considering the contentions, we do not find any merit in the same. The punishment order had reached finality on 2-42005. None of these grounds were taken by the petitioner before any of the authorities either before the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority or the revisional authority. The contention was taken for the first time before the Tribunal, that is, nine years after the order of punishment has been imposed. There is no satisfactory explanation as to the same. Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the inordinate delay in questioning the order, the same cannot be accepted since none of the contentions were taken at the earliest point of time. Therefore, such a contention cannot be taken for the first time before the Tribunal.

(3.) The further contention is that since the petitioner has been acquitted, the punishment order should be set aside. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court have held the issue against the petitioner. That a mere acquittal in the criminal court would not mean that the order of the Disciplinary Authority should be set aside or modified only on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted. Therefore, such a contention also cannot be accepted.