B. S. N. L. Vs. TAPAN KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 27/11/2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal quashed the charge sheet issued by the BSNL dtd. 15/5/2010 under the BSNL CDA Rules against the Respondent No.1 for his alleged misconduct. The facts relevant for the purpose of consideration and disposal of the petition may be noticed as under: -

(2.) The Respondent No.1 joined the service of the Post and Telegraph Department on 2/7/1973. Thereafter the Government took a policy decision and setup Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) vide Memo being No. OM No 2-29/2000- dtd. 30/9/2000. The Presidential order for permanent absorption of respondent no.1 in the BSNL was conveyed vide order dtd. 29/11/2000 and consequent to that permanent absorption of this respondent was made in BSNL from his parent organisation DOT. A charge memorandum under the signature of the Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones containing charges under Article I and article II was served upon the respondent to hold an enquiry under Rule 36 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 2006 wherein it is alleged that the Respondent No.1 while functioning as Accounts Officer during the year from 1999-2001 committed grave misconduct by deliberately signing number of bills and giving orders resulting wrongful loss to the Calcutta Telephones. The inquiring authority vide daily order sheet dtd. 6/1/2011 directed this respondent to inspect the authenticity of the documents and confirm the acceptance/ non acceptance of the said documents in writing with reasons as well as directed him to submit a list of additional documents if any required by him to be examined, its custodian and relevance of the same in each case, defence witnesses and controlling officers of the defence witnesses. This respondent after receipt of the order dtd. 6/1/2011 filed a representation before the enquiry authority regarding the acceptance of authenticity of documents except for those documents which were incomplete and made a request before the enquiry authority to supply the correct and complete documents and also requested for the original documents to be put up for inspection on the ground that the photo copies of several bills were not legible. The respondent made another representation on 17/1/2011 requesting for list of additional documents which he required in support of his defence. The representation dtd. 17/1/2011 was also followed by two more representations dtd. 17/2/2011 and 2/5/2011. The Inquiring Authority accepted that the documents requested for by the respondent are relevant and hence such documents were necessary for the defence of the respondent. The said Inquiring Authority directed the custodians of these documents and the presenting officer to make these documents available to the respondent. However, no such document was handed over by the custodians to the respondent and Inquiring Authority was again requested to make those documents available to the respondent. Thereafter, the Inquiring Authority initiated the enquiry proceedings on day-to-day basis with effect from 8/11/2012 till 6/3/2013 and submitted his findings on 26/3/2013 which was forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide a letter dtd. 16/4/2013.

(3.) The disciplinary authority passed its final order by which he imposed a major penalty on the respondent. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the final order dtd. 18/5/2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority the respondent preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority dtd. 18/6/2013. Appellate Authority was sitting tight over the appeal of the respondent and only after the intervention of the Tribunal he was allowed personal hearing. The Respondent was finally communicated the appellate order dtd. 6/10/2015 on 3/11/2015 by which the appellate authority affirmed the final order dtd. 18/5/2013 of the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the respondent again knocked the door of the Central Administrative Tribunal with a prayer for direction upon the BSNL to grant all consequential benefits and/ for retirement benefits with the restoration of seniority to this respondent. The Tribunal by passing impugned order dtd. 27/11/2019 quashed the charge memorandum dtd. 15/5/2010. The order dtd. 27/11/2019 is impugned in the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants asserted before us inter alia that the charge memorandum was issued regarding grave misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent for the period of 1999-2001 while he was functioning as Accounts Officer, Central Calcutta Telephones, containing charge under Article I, Article II and Article III under the BSNL Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 2006. The substance of the imputation of misconduct/ misbehaviour upon the charged official is that while functioning as Accounts Officer in Central Calcutta Telephones during 1999 to 2001 he deliberately signed on a number of bills and issued pay orders in most irresponsible manner resulting in loss to Calcutta Telephones and consequential wrongful gain to the firms failing to maintain absolute integrity, devolution to duty and also acted in a manner which was un becoming of a public servant contravening Rule (4)(1)(a), (4)(1)(b) and (4)(1)(c) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006.This Respondent duly participated in departmental enquiry proceedings with defence assistance to defend himself against charges brought against him giving reasonable opportunity. Thereafter the appellate authority after considering all the materials disposed of the said appeal on 6/10/2015 in accordance with law.