MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. R P DOHAREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 06.03.2013 in O.A. No.3071/2010. By the impugned order, the CAT modified the minor penalty to the extent that the date of its becoming effective was directed to be altered to 31.12.2001, instead of the original date, i.e. 27.09.2004.

(2.) The brief facts are that the applicant, who at the relevant time was working as officiating Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), was charged for major misconduct under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on 23.02.1999. After holding an inquiry, a report was furnished to the disciplinary authority on 03.10.2001. Since the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had to be secured before imposing any penalty, the matter was referred to that body; the latter, on 19.08.2002, required that de novo proceedings be drawn from the stage of completion of evidence, and the Inquiry Officer had to ask the delinquent/applicant about his explanation. The pre-existing Inquiry Officer refused to conduct the proceedings; ultimately a new Inquiry Officer was appointed on 05.04.2003 by the MTNL. At his instance, the inquiry was completed and the report furnished to the disciplinary authority again - reiterating the respondent/applicant's culpability on 31.05.2004. The applicant was furnished with a copy of the report. He represented against the findings on 02.09.2004. After considering all his materials, including the representation, the disciplinary authority, on 27.09.2004, imposed a penalty of reduction in one stage of pay scale without cumulative effect. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this order; he approached the CAT on an earlier instance but was asked to seek review which he again did unsuccessfully. He thereafter approached the CAT by filing O.A. No.3071/2010.

(3.) Various contentions were urged before the CAT, including that the charges were not proved; that the procedure adopted was unfair and that the penalty was not appropriate as it was unfair, given the long delay. In its conclusions, especially paras 12 and 13 of the impugned order, the CAT rejected the charge of procedural irregularity or illegality and returned positive finding that the applicant had been afforded all opportunity in accordance with the rules. However, in para 14, the CAT recorded the finding that there was inordinate delay in the conduct of the inquiry. Basing itself upon a circular/Office Memorandum dated 04.10.1952, which required expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings as well as the DOPT circular dated 14.09.1978, the CAT directed modification of the penalty order in the following terms: