TRILOK CHANDRA Vs. B.S.N.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Technician in the year 1973 in the Department of Telecommunication (DoT), Government of India. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor in the year 1983 and thereafter in the year 1991, he was promoted to the post of Junior Telecom Officer. In the year 2000, a company in the name and style of 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited' (hereinafter referred as BSNL) came into existence and the telecommunication operations undertaken by the DoT were made over to the said company (BSNL). The services of the employees of DoT were made over to the BSNL on deputation. Thereafter, the Government of India invited option from the employees of DoT belonging to class -Ill and class -ll posts for being absorbed in BSNL or to take V.R.S. The Petitioner alongwith other similarly situated employees submitted their options for being absorbed as permanent employee of BSNL and their options were accepted. It was further alleged in the writ petition that the Petitioner at present is working as Sub -Divisional Officer. It was further alleged that on 18 -07 -2006, A.G.M. (Planning) sent a letter to the Petitioner to attend before the Committee on 19 -07 -2006 regarding discrepancy in HSD required and consumed in C -DoT Exchange, Haldwani. The Petitioner was also asked to submit counter statement on the subject. The Petitioner submitted his statement. Thereafter, the Committee submitted its report. It was further alleged that the Petitioner was never given chargesheet or imputations. The Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 18 -12 -2006 directing recovery of Rs. 34,904/ - from the salary of the Petitioner. It was further alleged that the impugned order has been passed in total disregard and against the principle of natural justice. The Petitioner also made protest to Account Officer for deducting the said amount but the Account Officer rejected the same by stating that the same was being made in pursuance to the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) THE Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the same averments which he has made in the writ petition.