BSNL AND ANR. Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1373/2011 whereby the respondent's said Original Application was allowed and the order dated 04.04.2011, cancelling the ad hoc promotion order issued in respect of the respondent on the ground that there was a disciplinary / vigilance case pending against him, was set aside. The Tribunal has, however, given opportunity to the petitioner to take appropriate action as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules after giving the respondent a notice to show cause. The only issue which arose before the Tribunal for consideration was whether the respondent ought to have been furnished with a show cause notice and, consequently, an opportunity to respond thereto prior to his reversion from the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) to which he was promoted on an ad hoc and temporary basis by virtue of a promotion order dated 23.02.2011.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent, the principles of natural justice require that before he was reverted to his substantive post of Sub -Divisional Engineer (Electrical), he ought to have been given an opportunity of presenting his case against the reversion. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was merely a cancellation of an ad hoc and temporary promotion, it did not amount to any penalty and, therefore, there was no necessity of giving any show cause notice to the respondent before his promotion on an ad hoc and temporary post was cancelled. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Explanations contained in Rule 33 of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). We may point out that Rule 33 relates to penalties. Rule 33 (A) relates to minor penalties and Rule 33 (B) relates to major penalties. After the said penalties have been stipulated, there are Explanations contained in the said Rule 33. The Explanation that is relevant for our purposes is Explanation (iv), which reads as under: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent controverted these pleas by submitting that the clarification that was issued on 11.05.2007 was not actually part of the said Rules. He further submitted that this was not a case of reversion on any administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct and the reversion order dated 04.04.2011 did not specify that he was being reverted on the ground that he was unsuitable for working in the higher grade of Executive Engineer (Electrical). Consequently, he submitted that the respondent ought to have been given a show cause notice and ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing as that was the requirement of natural justice.