GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lis on hand has arisen consequent to the order impugned dated 03.08.2015 issued by the third respondent, holding that with reference to the letters cited in the reference stipulated in the impugned order, it is stated that a final decision of the competent authority of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) was communicated to the writ petitioner in their office letter dated 24.08.2013 and the petitioner was advised to take suitable remedial action as deemed fit for recovery from the borrowers. It is once again stated that the loan applications were not authenticated/authorised by the Accounts Officer(Pay and Claims).

(2.) The letter referred dated 24.08.2013 states that already the writ petitioner was informed that the loan applications were not authenticated/authorised by the Accounts Officer(Pay and Claims), office of the GM Telecom, Tirupathi for recovery from the pay and allowances of the officials. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to take suitable remedial action as deemed fit for recovery of the same from the borrowers.

(3.) On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is made clear that even before the year 2013, the respondents had informed to the petitioners that the loan applications submitted by the respective members of the petitioner society were not authenticated/authorised by the Accounts Officer(Pay and Claims) of BSNL. Thus, they are not obligated to recover directly from the salary of the BSNL employees and pay it to the writ petitioner's Cooperative Society. It seems that such a reply was given to the writ petitioner's Cooperative Society for many times and frequently. However, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only in the present writ petition during the year 2016. Thus, there is a delay even on the part of the writ petitioner's Cooperative Society in pursuing their remedy, knowing the fact that the respondent authority had informed them that they have not authenticated/authorised the loan applications submitted by the members to the writ petitioner's Cooperative Society for their borrowings.