THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, PATNA & ORS. Vs. KAMESHWAR DUBEY SON OF DEO NARAYAN DUBEY & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the BSNL), a Government of India Undertaking, being aggrieved by the orders as passed in O.A. No. 677 of 2012 being final order dated 22.2.2013 and O.A. No. 488 of 2013 being order dated 20.1.2014. Both of which were instituted before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by Kameshwar Dubey the sole private respondent in both these writ petitions. By order dated 22.2.2013, passed in O.A. No. 677 of 2012, the Tribunal has held the suspension of the sole private respondent to be bad in law and by order dated 20.1.2014, passed in O.A. No. 488 of 2013, the Tribunal has quashed the memo of charges served on the sole private respondent holding it to be bad and in contravention of Rules governing the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2006).

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the BSNL and learned counsel for the sole private respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, at length and with their consent these two writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) There is no factual controversy. The private respondent was Chief Accounts Officer, (Internal Financial Advisor) in the office of the Telecom Divisional Manager, Sasaram. On 25.7.2012, the sole private respondent was informed by the Department that he would superannuate with effect from 31.7.2012 and accordingly, he was directed to hand over the charge of the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Sasaram to Sri Ghanshyam Das. It is not in controversy that in the afternoon of 31.7.2012, the sole private respondent handed over charge to the said Ghanshyam Das. At 5.40 pm, the same day i.e. the date on which he had to superannuate, he was served with an order suspending him with immediate effect. This became the subject matter of challenge in the first O.A. before the Tribunal. While the sole private respondent was, thus, suspended, he was superannuated and thereafter, on 19.07.2013 the sole private respondent was served with memorandum of charge, dated 01.05.2013. This became the subject matter of the second O.A. before the Tribunal. The common prayer, in both the Original Applications, was for a direction to the authorities to settle and finalise the pensionary benefits and release monetary benefits upon his superannuation after setting aside the order of suspension and memorandum of charge.