M MARIAPPAN vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

1 OA 467/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00467/2017

th
Dated, the 7 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON’BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
M.Mariappan,
HRMS No. 198001738, AGM (EB),
O/O. GMT., BSNL„ Virudhunagar … Applicant

By Advocate .. M/s.R.Rajesh Kumar
Vs.

1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
BSNL Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chandra Mathus Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi 110 001.

2.The Director (HR) BSNL Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathus Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi 110 001

3.The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications,
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle,
16, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006.

4.The General Manager,
BSNL, Virudhunagar 626 001.
Tamilnadu … Respondents



By Advocate .. Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar

2 OA 467/2017
ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
rd
“To set aside the order passed by the 3 respondent bearing
No.VIG/20-748/11-Disc dated at Chennai-6 dated 30.01.2015
nd
subsequently confirmed by the 2 respondent bearing No.235-
53/2015-VM (appeal) dated 31.05.2016 and pass such or other order
as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”


2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:

2.1 The applicant is an Assistant General Manager, AGM (adhoc) in the
Respondent organisation. He was functioning as AGM in officiating capacity
since 18.11.2009 and he was promoted as AGM (adhoc), vide order dated
12.07.2010 and he assumed charge as AGM on 13.07.2010 and in addition to
his regular duties, he additionally looked after the portfolio of AGM(Planning)
also in the absence of regular AGM (Planning). He was served with a charge
memo dated 25.02.2011 alleging certain irregularities committed by him when
looking after the duties of AGM (Planning) Virudhunagar and the applicant
gave a reply dated 24.03.2011 to the said charges and imputation. While so,
vide order dated 12.05.2011 of the General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar, the
applicant was reverted from the post of AGM to the post of SDE Telecom with
immediate effect. The applicant challenged the said reversion before this
Tribunal, vide OA No.720/2011 wherein this Tribunal allowed the said OA by
quashing the reversion order. The said order of this Tribunal was appealed
before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of the

3 OA 467/2017
Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court.
2.2 In the meanwhile, inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer IO
exonerated the applicant from all charges except the charge under Article IX
out of Total ten charges. The Disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings
of the IO with regard to Articles, II, IV, V, VI, VII and X, and asked for
explanation from the applicant for which the applicant gave a detailed
explanation, vide reply dated 22.09.2014. Without considering the same, the
disciplinary authority, vide order dated 30.01.2015 imposed the penalty of
“reduction of pay by three stages from Rs.48290/- to 44180 in 68.8% IDA
Fixation (corresponding 78.2% IDA fixation will apply wherever necessary) in
the time scale of pay of Rs.29100-54500 for a period of three years on Shri
M.Mariappan (HRMS No.198001738) presently SDE (MIS) Virudhunagar. He
will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on
expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future
increments of pay”. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal
nd
dated 06.07.2015 before the 2 respondent but the same was dismissed, vide
order dated 31.05.2016. The Review Petition dated 26.09.2016 filed by the
st
applicant was not considered by the 1 respondent. Being aggrieved the
applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
2.3 The contention of the applicant is that out of ten articles of charge, the
Inquiry Officer-appointed by the Respondents themselves-exonerated the
Applicant from nine charges after full inquiry and consideration of all
documentary evidence and witnesses produced by the prosecution. Once the
IO holds a charge not proved, that finding is conclusive unless it is shown to
be perverse. The Supreme Court in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan and

4 OA 467/2017
K. Rajaiah v. High Court for the State of Telangana (Civil Appeal No.
1560 of 2026) has reiterated that disciplinary findings unsupported by
reliable evidence or marked by perversity are amenable to interference. No
perversity has been alleged or established here. The Respondents’ attempt to
dilute the exoneration by exploiting the phrase ''not proved beyond doubt" is
legally untenable and intellectually dishonest. Beyond doubt is the criminal
standard. In departmental proceedings, preponderance of probability suffices,
and the IO’s finding of 'not proved’ on nine charges must be given full effect.
2.4 Further, the power of the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the
Inquiry Officer is limited and exceptional. It must be exercised on the basis of
evidence on record, with clear identification of error in the IO's reasoning. In
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, the
Supreme Court held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with
the enquiry authority on any article of charge, it must record its tentative
reasons for disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to
represent before recording findings. The Supreme Court also clarified in
Mahavir Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302 that recording of
reasons is obligatory for any quasi-judicial authority as it ensures the decision
is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy. In
the present case, the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement note suffers from
the following fatal infirmities:
(a) It does not identify any specific perversity in the 1O’s
findings;
(b) It does not point to any evidence that was ignored or
misread by the IO;
It does not analyse the testimonies of witnesses in any
(c)
meaningful manner;
(d) It does not demonstrate any error of reasoning, logic, or
appreciation of facts.

5 OA 467/2017

2.5 Once the Disciplinary Authority disagrees from the IO's findings, the
delinquent officer acquires a substantive right to be heard effectively. This has
been settled conclusively by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, (2003) 2 SCC 447:
“After referring to various decisions including the decisions relied on behalf of the
Bank, this Court has clearly held that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with
the report of the enquiring authority in regard to certain charges, providing of an

opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. "

The Applicant, in response to the disagreement memorandum, submitted a
detailed representation supported by official documents belonging to the
Department itself. The Disciplinary Authority summarily rejected these
documents on the ground that they “were not part of the enquiry evidence.”
This reasoning is legally indefensible. The Evidence which were part of the
enquiry were already considered in detail and the IO had given a clear order
exonerating the Applicant from 8 charges out of nine and when the DA propose
to deviate, he ought to have admitted the documents pointed and quoted by
the applicant. The Supreme Court in Vijay Malhan v. UOI & Ors. [W.P.{C}
2903/2003, Delhi High Court, 13 October 2022] held that the DA must
communicate its tentative conclusions so that the delinquent officer may
indicate that the reasons for disagreement are not germane. The entire
purpose of the post-disagreement hearing is to give the charged official a fair
chance to address the DA's objections. Confining the applicant only to
documents already on the inquiry record while asking him to respond to the
DA's new disagreement reasoning reduces the procedure to a predetermined
ritual, violating audi alteram partem.
2.6 A significant part of the Respondents' case rests upon the SE-23

6 OA 467/2017
photographs. However, these photographs suffer from fundamental legal
deficiencies:
(a) No mahazar was drawn at the site;
(b) No independent witness was present at the time of photography;
(c) There is no chain of custody established;
(d) No negatives, metadata, or digital authentication has been
produced;
(e) No one has vouched for or identified the specific locations depicted.

The Respondents’ contention is that no objection was raised at the time the
photographs were marked as Exhibit SE-23. However, the Supreme Court in
K.Rajaiah v. High Court for the State of Telangana {Civil Appeal No.
1560 of 2026, decided 11.02.2026) has held that in cases involving serious
charges with severe consequences, greater caution and circumspection are
required, and findings must rest on cogent material. The mere marking of a
document as an exhibit does not clothe it with evidentiary value if it lacks
authenticity. Critically, the SE-23 photographs were not the foundation of the
charge memo or the statement of imputation. Their belated elevation to the
primary basis of the DA’s findings, after the IO had exonerated the Applicant,
amounts to introducing a new case behind the Applicant's back-wholly
impermissible in departmental proceedings.
2.7 The charges relating to passing of cable contractor bills must be assessed
against the administrative reality within which the Applicant functioned. The
undisputed facts are:
(a) The JAO's remarks were advisory in nature and did not constitute a
veto;
(b) The Accounts Officer (AO) and the Chief Accounts Officer (CAO)
gave financial clearance to the bills;
(c) The bills were routed and processed through the established
administrative and financial hierarchy;
(d) The IO himself noted that in most cases, the CAO had cleared the
noting and was aware of the queries.

7 OA 467/2017
To hold the Applicant individually responsible for every aspect of every bill to
the exclusion of all other officers in the hierarchy who examined and approved
those bills is to rewrite administrative law. An AGM acting in reliance on
finance concurrence by the AO and CAO-officers specifically designated to
provide financial oversight-cannot be held individually liable for irregularities
those officers ought to have caught.
2.8 Article IX, the sole charge found proved by the IO, relates to issuance of
Acceptance/Test (A/T) certificates. Even here, the Respondents have not
established:
(a) That the A/T certification was false-i.e., that the works were not
actually verified;
(b) That the verification actually carried out was incorrect or defective;
(c) That any non-execution of works was directly connected to the
Applicant's certification.

The dates in the A/T clearance form were inserted in manuscript by the field
SDE while complying with a pre-check query-not by the Applicant. The printed
format had no column for the A/T date. There is no evidence that the
Applicant directed false dates. What is at most established is a procedural
irregularity in documentation-which cannot, in law, be elevated into an act
of grave misconduct warranting a major penalty. As the Supreme Court held
in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 442, the
penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

2.9 The penalty of reduction of pay by three stages from Rs.48,290/- to
Rs.44,180/- for three years-with cumulative effect on future increments is
among the most severe penalties in the disciplinary arsenal. Its consequences
are:
(a) Immediate and severe financial loss during the penalty period;

8 OA 467/2017
(b) Permanent damage to career progression through postponement of
future increments;
(c) Substantial adverse impact on pensionary benefits;
(d) A permanent stigma on a career spanning decades of public service.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally held in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of
India, (1987) 4 SCC 611: AIR 1987 SC 2386 that:
'The sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not
be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to
the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to
conducive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part
of the concept of Judicial review would ensure that even on an aspect
which is otherwise within the exclusive province of the authority if
the decision even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic
then the sentence would not be immune from correction.


This principle was first articulated in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 : ( 1983) 2 SSC 442 where the Supreme Court
held: ''It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with
the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the
gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. "
In the present case, where nine of ten charges stand exonerated, and
where the sole proved charge (Article IX) does not establish corruption,
financial gain, or intentional wrongdoing, a cumulative pay reduction of this
severity is shockingly disproportionate and calls for interference.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the
OA except those which are admitted on facts and also reiterating the
statements made by them in the impugned order.
3.1 Per contra, the respondents have submitted that the applicant, without
exhausting his departmental remedies, i.e., when the Review Petition is still
pending, has approached this Tribunal and hence the OA is premature and not

9 OA 467/2017
maintainable. The respondents submitted that according to the established
procedures in a departmental inquiry, no one, either the disciplinary authority
or the presenting officer of the charged official can subsequently use a
document which is not used as evidence during the course of the inquiry
proceedings, other than documents in public domain. Therefore, any other
additional document produced along with defence brief cannot be taken
cognizance of since the prosecution did not have an opportunity to inspect
them and submit its argument and therefore, no fresh evidence submitted by
the charged official can be taken into consideration.
3.2 With regard to the SE-23 printed photos of the site the applicant did not
raise any objection at the time of its supply and also at any time during the
course of inquiry. Had the applicant raised the question of authenticity at the
time of admission and marking of the said photos as evidence, the prosecution
would have got a chance of proving its authenticity. Further, the charges have
been conclusively proved against the applicant not merely on the basis of these
photos but have been complemented with other corroborative documentary
evidences and the deposition of the witnesses.
3.3 Further, the applicant while functioning as AGM (Planning) has
deliberately passed the cable contractor’s bills, in spite of various queries
raised by JAO/AO remain unanswered. The averment of the applicant that
once the AO gives the clearance, it is the AO’s noting that binds AGM is
untenable. As AGM(Planning), the applicant should have satisfied himself that
all the queries raised have been answered, before passing the bills. The
applicant had every right and power to overrule AO’s noting and to return the
file for getting the important queries answered which he did not do. Further,

10 OA 467/2017
the exchanges pertaining to the SE-22 are not rural exchanges but are
exchanges working in Virudhunagar and Rajapalayam town areas only and the
applicant had not brought any material during the inquiry proceedings to
substantiate his charge that the SE-22 is manipulated and interpolated.
3.4 Further, most of the points raised by the applicant in his representation
have already been taken into consideration by IO during the inquiry
proceedings. No new fact has been submitted by the applicant and he had
failed to adduce any new version/arguments/evidence/cogent reply for the
charges framed against him for consideration of Disciplinary Authority. The
applicant has not claimed that the field officer has put the wrong dates for A/T
and has also not brought any evidence during the inquiry to show that the A/Ts
were done on different dates. The applicant is guilty of grave misconduct and
lack of integrity resulting in huge loss to the company. However, taking into
account the past service record of the officer, a lenient view was taken and the
punishment of reduction in pay by three stages was ordered, which is
justifiable. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard the rival arguments of both parties and perused the material
placed on record and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.
5. The applicant was functioning as an Assistant General Manager (ad hoc)
in the respondent organisation. The applicant was served with a charge memo
dt. 25.02.2011 bearing reference No. VIG/20-748/11-DISC alleging
irregularities committed by the applicant, while he was looking after the
functions of Assistant General Manager (Planning), Virudhunagar. The memo
was served to him on 25.02.2011 giving him an opportunity to make a
representation in respect of any matter dealt with in the proceedings as

11 OA 467/2017
detailed in the aforementioned memorandum and an opportunity was granted
to him to submit his written statement of defence on or before the date as
specified in para 2 of the said memorandum. Accordingly, 10 articles of charges
were framed against the applicant with Statement of articles of charges as
Annexure-I, Statement of Imputations of Misconduct as Annexure-II, List of
documents as Annexure-III and List of Witnesses by whom the articles of
charges are proposed to be sustained were also enclosed Annexure-IV. Initially
the applicant was reverted and the Tribunal gave him relief and allowed the
OA No.720/2011. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras confirmed
the order of this Tribunal in WP No. 9492/2013 and the SLP No. 29685/2013
filed by the respondent department thereagainst was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Review Petition and Curative Petition filed by the
respondent department before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also
dismissed.
6. Subsequently, as per the provisions contained under the Rule 14 of CCS
(CCA) Rules for imposing major penalty, the inquiry was conducted. The
Inquiry Officer submitted his report dt. 23.06.2014 (Annexure A2). Each article
of charge has been dealt with elaborately citing facts and figures. However, as
per the Inquiry Officer’s report only charge at Article IX was “proved beyond
reasonable doubt”. The disciplinary authority, vide its order dt. 14.08.2014,
after scrutinising in detail the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer,
disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of Articles II, IV,
V, VI, VII and concluded that these articles along with Article IX stand proved.
It is also recorded that in the inquiry report, the benefit of doubt has been
extended to the charged officer Shri. M. Mariyappan. The Disciplinary Authority

12 OA 467/2017
vide order dt. 30.01.2015 imposed the penalty of “reduction of pay by Three
stages from Rs. 48,290/- in 68.8% IDA Fixation (Corresponding 78.2% IDA
fixation will apply wherever necessary) in the time scale of pay of Rs. 29100
– 54500 for a period of Three years on Shri. M. Mariappan (HRMS No.
198001738) presently SDE (MIS) Virudhunagar. He will not earn increments
of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of this period, the
reduction will have effect of postponing his future increments of pay. This order
takes immediate effect.”
7. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that once the Inquiry Officer
holds the charge not proved that finding is conclusive. He cites the judgment
dt. 02.05.1986 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savai Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan, 1986 AIR 995 . He submitted that disciplinary findings
unsupported by reliable evidence or marked by perversity are amenable to
interference. He further mentioned that in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj
Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiring authority on
any article of charge, it must record its tentative reasons for disagreement and
give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before recording
findings. He further relies upon Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State
of UP & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 1302 and argued that recording of reasons is
obligatory for any quasi-judicial authority as it ensures the decision is reached
according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy.
8. A disagreement memorandum dt. 14.08.2014 was served on the
Charged Officer and the Charged Officer submitted a detailed representation
supported by the official document. It is observed in the Inquiry Officer’s report

13 OA 467/2017
that his conclusion for the charges to be proved are to be proved beyond doubt.
This is a procedure which is suitable and apt for adopting in the criminal
proceedings. However, in case of departmental proceedings, the guiding
principle is preponderance of probability. The disciplinary authority in his order
dt. 14.08.2014 dealt with each charge in detail and found out that based on
the inquiry report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer, there are sufficient
reasons for coming to the conclusion to prove the charges and accordingly, he
imposed a major penalty of “reduction of pay by Three stages from Rs.
48,290/- in 68.8% IDA Fixation (Corresponding 78.2% IDA fixation will apply
wherever necessary) in the time scale of pay of Rs. 29100 – 54500 for a period
of Three years on Shri. M. Mariappan (HRMS No. 198001738) presently SDE
(MIS) Virudhunagar. He will not earn increments of pay during the period of
such reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have effect of
postponing his future increments of pay. This order takes immediate effect.”
9. As per the provision under Rule 15 of CCS CCA Rules 1965, fair
opportunities are to be given to the charged officer to ensure compliance with
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which mandates reasonable and fair
opportunities to a Government servant to make a representation before the
Disciplinary Authority. As per the amendment made in 1995, when the
Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the inquiry report, the reasons for
disagreement must be furnished to the Government servant to enable effective
representation. In the instant case, the disagreement memo dated
14.08.2014 was served to the charged officer and the charged officer
submitted a detailed representation supported by official documents. As per
the provisions of Rule 15 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary

14 OA 467/2017
Authority is not bound to accept the Inquiry Officer’s findings. In case of
disagreement, he has to record the tentative reasons for disagreement,
communicate those reasons along with the Inquiry Officer’s report to the
charged employee and give the employee an opportunity to submit a
representation and after considering that representation, arrive at its own
findings on the charges and then impose an appropriate penalty based on
those findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed this principle in its
decision in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6
SCC 157, wherein the Supreme Court has held that, "Whenever the disciplinary
authority disagrees with the enquiring authority on any article of charge then
before it records its findings on such charge, it must record its tentative
reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an
opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry
officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent
officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept
the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice
require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a
penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the
charges framed against the officer".
10. In the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra
reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1783, the Supreme Court has
held as under:
“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice
have to be read into Regulation 7(2) . As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary
authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it
records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such

15 OA 467/2017
disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it
records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to
be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The
principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which
has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the
officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority
records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."

It is also a settled law that a fresh inquiry is not automatically required merely
because the DA disagrees with the IO.
11. Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered view that no procedural infirmity
has been observed and the view adopted by the Disciplinary Authority and
further confirmed by the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities do not suffer
from legal infirmities. The applicant has failed to make out a case for judicial
interference and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
12. The OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.


(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

MT/SKSI 07.10.2026




THANGAM M
Digitally signed by
THANGAM M
Date: 2026.11.02 12:48:04
+05'30'