M RAJAPPA vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00126/2024
ORDER RSERVED ON: 21.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 14.10.2026
CORAM
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON’BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Shri M.Rajappa,
62 years,
S/o Shri Gojipet Muneppa,
Retired Sr.TOA (P),
Office of General Manager Telecom,
Kolar-563101.
Residing at: No.5772/5546,
‘Sri Harsha’, M.N.Halli Road,
th
Near APMC Yard, 5 Cross,
Maruthi Nagar,
Mulbagal -563131,
Kolar District. …Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.A.Kulkarni)
Vs.
1. Union of India
To be represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Sanchar Bhavan,
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
2 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
No.20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
No.20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi: 110 001.
3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Corporate Office (Personnel Branch)
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
4th Floor, Janpath,
H.C.Mathur Lane,
New Delhi: 110 001.
4. Chief General Manager Telecom,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru,
Bengaluru: 560 008.
5. Senior General Manager Telecom,
Kolar Telecom District,
BSNL, Kolar: 563 101. ...Respondents
(By Senior Central Government Panel Counsel Shri Vsihnu Bhat
for Respondents No.1 &2 and Shri Gajendra Vasu for
Respondents No.3 to 5)
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
3 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs:
“(a) Quash the orders
bearing No:Sr.GM Kolar/Disc-case/Sri.M.Rajappa/2200/
R-36/98215190/7, dated 12.05.2023, Annexure-A5, passed
by Sr.GM Telecom Kolar Respondent No.5 herein,
bearing No:31-01/2023-TFS dated: 17.02.2023, passed by
Dept. of Telecom New Delhi R-2, as indicated under BSNL
CO New Delhi No:BSNL CO-A/15(15)/6/2022-ESTAB,
Dated: 24.02.2023. R-3 herein Annexure-A6
and
bearing No:Sr. GM Kolar/Disc-case/Sri. Rajappa/2200/
Rule-36/98215190/12, dated: 16.01.2024, Annexure-A7,
passed by Sr.GM Kolar R-5 herein.
b) Direct the respondents to forthwith release the regular
pension and the other terminal benefits like DCRG and
commutation of pension due to the applicant after his
retirement along with admissible interest on the delayed
payment.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
4 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the interest of
justice and equity.”
2. Facts in brief are that the applicant while working as Senior
Telecom Operating Assistant (Phones) in Kolar Telecom Division
got retired from service with effect from 31.05.2021. In a major
penalty disciplinary proceedings initiated by the administration
against the applicant by issue of charge memo dated 31.03.2011
under Rule 36 of the BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules
2006 (‘Rules’ for short), punishment of compulsory retirement came
to be passed on 30.12.2013 and on the challenge made against this
order in OA No.01/2014, the said punishment order was set aside,
which was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in W.P.No.4968/2014 by the administration. By a common order
dated 19.03.2021 Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka clubbing
identical Writ Petition No.15639/2017 with Writ Petition
No.4968/2014 (S-CAT), dismissed the writ petitions. However,
liberty was reserved to the competent Disciplinary Authority to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is the contention of the
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
5 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
applicant that the competent Disciplinary Authority failed to
exercise the liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court till the
applicant’s superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2021. On 12.05.2023,
Respondent No.5 has passed the punishment order imposing the
penalty of 25% pension cut for combined service of DOT & BSNL
permanently. After passing the punishment order, Respondent No.5
has also issued order dated 16.01.2024 regulating the periods
concerning compulsory retirement order passed initially till the
reinstatement from the suspension period. Being aggrieved, the
applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri P.A.Kulkarni representing the
applicant submitted that the impugned punishment order at Annexure
A5 is purportedly passed in exercise of powers available under Rule
61 of the Rules which is akin to the powers available under CCS
(Pension) Rules. The impugned punishment order is totally
untenable in law as the allegations contained in the charges (1) to (3)
would not fall under the category of grave misconduct or negligence
in terms of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in D.V.Kapoor vs.
Union of India and others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 314. In the
absence of any mention in the charge memo alleging committal of
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
6 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
grave misconduct or in the absence of a finding to that effect in the
impugned punishment order before imposing the punishment, it
would amount to misuse/high-handed exercise of the disciplinary
control vested in the authority and the same would be in infringement
of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In the instant
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant while in
service, there is no justification for exercising of the power to
continue the proceedings against him after his retirement nor it is
open for the authority to impose the penalty of 25% pension cut.
Non exercising of liberty granted by the Hon’ble High of Karnataka
in W.P.No.4968/2014 in time i.e., before retirement of the applicant
on 31.05.2021, in the facts and circumstances of the present case
should create quietus in the matter. As such the power to proceed
further under Rule 61 of the Rules, would be impermissible. Hence
OA deserves to be allowed granting the reliefs claimed.
4. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. It is stated that the applicant was working as Senior
Telecom Operating Assistant (Phones) in the then Kolar Telecom
District, BSNL from 18.01.1993 and he was also office bearer
functioning as District Secretary of BSNL Employees Union
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
7 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(BSNLEU) Kolar SSA. The applicant went to the Office of the
AGM (NWO) Chinthamani along with some other officials and
interfered in the functioning of that office and also indulged himself
in manhandling and assaulted Shri A.Venkateshappa, SDE (NWO)
Groups Chinthamani on 04.01.2011 in the Office of the AGM
(NWO) Chinthamani. The applicant was absconding from then to
till the date of suspension i.e., 10.01.2011. He was issued with a
memorandum of charges dated 31.03.2011 by the then Disciplinary
Authority the DGM Kolar as per the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. The
said disciplinary proceedings culminated in penalty of compulsory
retirement from the service of the applicant with immediate effect
vide order dated 30.12.2013 and on the challenge made by the
applicant to the said order before this Tribunal in OA No.01/2014,
the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was
quashed. On further challenge by the administration in
W.P.NO.4968/2014, the same came to be dismissed reserving liberty
to the competent Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. In compliance with the said order, the
Disciplinary Authority has taken steps to pass appropriate orders as
per BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 and accordingly the case was referred
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
8 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
to DOT through corporate office for ratification of penalty in view of
the Rule 43 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 and 37A of CCS Pension
Rules. The case was ratified by the competent authority i.e., DOT
and penalty of 25% pension cut in the monthly pension for the
combined service of DOT and BSNL permanently was imposed
on the applicant vide memo dated 17.02.2023. Accordingly, final
order was issued by the Senior General Manager, Kolar vide order
dated 12.05.2023 imposing penalty of 25% pension cut for the
combined service of DOT and BSNL permanently. Reiterating the
same, learned Counsel Shri K.Gajendra Vasu representing the
Respondents No.3 to 5 submitted that the applicant is not eligible for
any of the reliefs claimed in the OA. It is further submitted that
aggrieved by the penalty order dated 12.05.2023, the applicant made
representation dated 25.06.2023, it was received by the then PGM
office on 16.08.2023, i.e., much beyond the limit of 30 days of
receiving the final order. The applicant was paid full pension as
admissible after he got retired provisionally with effect from
31.05.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation till imposition of
penalty. Justifying the action of the respondents in issuing the
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
9 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
impugned penalty order, learned Counsel seeks for dismissal of the
OA.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Statements of Articles of charges dated 31.03.2011 issued
by the Disciplinary Authority, as per the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006,
reads thus:
“ Article-I. That the said Sri. M.Rajappa, while functioning
as Sr.TOA (P), working in AO (A &P) section O/o GMTD
Kolar during the period from 18-01-1993 to till date of
suspension (i.e. 10-01-2011) was unauthorizedly absent for
duty from 04-01-2011, By the above act, Sri. M.Rajappa Sr.
TOA (P) failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a
manner which is unbecoming of a public servant and
thereby, contravened Rule, 4 (1) (b),4 (1) (c) & 5 (18) of
BSNL CDA Rules 2006
Article-II. That during the aforesaid period & while
functioning in aforesaid office, on 04-01-2011 the said Sri.
M.Rajappa went to the O/o AGM (NWO) Chinthamani
along with some other officials and interfered in the
functioning of that office. By interfering in the work of some
other office Sri. M.Rajappa had acted in a manner which is
unbecoming of a public servant and thereby, contravened
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
10 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Rule 4(1) (C), 5 (12), 5 (20), 5 (29) and Rule 5 (38) of BSNL
CDA Rules 2006.
Article- III. That the said Sri M.Rajappa, while functioning
as Sr. TOA(P), working in AO (A&P) section office of
GMTD, Kolar had indulged himself in manhandling &
assaulted Sri. A Venkateshappa, SDE (NWO) Groups
Chinthamani on 04-01-2011 in the office of AGM (NW-O)
Chinthamani. By physically assaulting an employee, Sri.
M.Rajappa had acted in a manner which is unbecoming of
a public servant and thereby, contravened Rule 4 (1) (C)
5 (12), 5(17), 5 (20) & 5 (38) of BSNI. CDA Rules 2006.”
7. After appointing the inquiry authority and conducting the
inquiry, the penalty order of compulsory retirement from service was
issued to the applicant with immediate effect. On the challenge
made to the said order in OA No.01/2014, this Tribunal vide order
dated 20.01.2014 allowed the application setting aside the order of
penalty on the ground that the officer who passed the order is
incompetent. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No.4968/2014 was
filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The said writ
petition was connected with Writ Petition No.15639/2017, involving
the identical issue and by a common order dated 19.03.2021 came to
be dismissed reserving liberty to the competent Disciplinary
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
11 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, fresh punishment order has been passed by the
competent Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated
12.05.2023 imposing the penalty of 25% monthly pension cut for
combined service of DOT and BSNL permanently on the charged
employee – applicant.
8. Rule 61 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 deals with the
disciplinary provisions for retiring employees. The same reads thus:
“(1) The employee against whom disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service
on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary
proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the
proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in
respect thereof. The concerned employee will not receive
any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation.
He will also not be entitled for the payments of retirement
benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order
is passed thereon except his own contribution to Provident
Fund and he will be entitled for the provisional pension as
per applicable rule.
(2) ………………………………….
(3) ………………………………….
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
12 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(4)(1) Chairman/Managing Director is the
competent authority to issue sanction to institute the
departmental proceedings against the absorbed employees
after retirement for withholding a pension for combined
service of BSNL and DOT period (herein referred as
pension) or gratuity or both either full or in part or
withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether
permanently or for a specified period and of ordering
recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the Company, if, any
disciplinary or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period
of service, including service rendered upon re-employment
after retirement:
……………………………………………
(4)(2)(a) The disciplinary proceedings referred to in
sub-rule 4(1), if instituted while the absorbed employee was
in service whether before his retirement or during his re-
employment, shall, after the final retirement of the absorbed
employee, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and
shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which
they were commenced in the same manner as if the
absorbed employee had continued in service:
…………………………………………….”
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
13 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Penalties are prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules. It is
true that 25% pension cut is not mentioned in Rule 33 and it cannot
be mentioned also since the same deals with the employees who were
in service. Rule 61(4)(1) – which deals with disciplinary provisions
for retiring employees concerned, is in pari materia with Rule-9 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, - the phrase, “the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of
service”, employed therein, has been considered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in D.V.Kapoor, supra. It is observed thus:
“6. Rule 8(5), explanation (b) defines 'grave misconduct'
thus'
"The expression 'grave misconduct' includes the
communication or disclosure of any secret official
code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article,
note, document or information, such as is mentioned in
Section 5 of the Official Secrets, Act, 1923 (19 of 1923)
(which was obtained while holding office under the
Government) so as to prejudicially affect the interests
of the general public of the security of the State."
7. In one of the decisions of the Government as
compiled by Swamy's Pension Compilation, 1987 Edition,
it is stated that:
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
14 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
"Pensions are not in the nature of reward but there is
a binding obligation on Government which can be
claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on
resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a
pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on
future good conduct, but it cannot be stopped or
reduced for other reasons."
8. It is seen that the President has reserved to himself
the right to withhold pension in whole or in part therefore
whether permanently or for a specified period or he can
recover from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused by the Government employee to the Government
subject to the minimum. The condition precedent is that in
any departmental enquiry or the judicial proceedings, the
pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence
during the period of his service of the original or on re-
employment. The condition precedent thereto is that there
should be a finding that the delinquent is guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in
office, as defined in Rule 8(5), Explanation (b) which is an
inclusive definition, i.e. the scope is wide of mark dependent
on the facts or circumstances in a given case. Myriad
situation may arise depending on the ingenuity with which
misconduct or irregularity was committed. It is not
necessary to further probe into the scope and meaning of
the words 'grave misconduct or negligence' and under what
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
15 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
circumstances the findings in this regard are held proved.
It is suffice that charges in this case are that the appellant
was guilty of wilful misconduct in not reporting to duty after
his transfer from Indian High Commission at London to the
Office of External Affairs Ministry, Government of India,
New Delhi. The Inquiry Officer found that though the
appellants derelicted his duty to report to duty, it is not
wilful for the reasons that he could not move due to his
wife's illness and he recommended to sympathetically
consider the case of the appellant and the President
accepted this finding, but decided to withhold gratuity and
payment of pension in consultation with the Union Public
Service Commission.
9. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is
hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be
recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial
proceedings that the pensioner committed grave
misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while
in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a
finding the Presi- dent is without authority of law to impose
penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment
either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified
period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole
or in part from the pension of the employee, subject to
minimum of Rs.60.”
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
16 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
10. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the matter is
examined. The charges framed against the applicant and the inquiry
report’s finding that the said charges are proved, indicates the gravity
of charges. The Rule position stated in the charge memo are as under:
“The applicant Contravened provisions of
1) Rule 4(1)(b)- maintain devotion to duty;
2) Rule 4(1)(c)- do nothing which is unbecoming of a Public
Servant;
The applicant committed the misconduct
1) Rule 5(18)-Absence from the employee's appointed place of
work without permission or sufficient cause.;
2) Rule 5(12)- Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or
indecent behaviour in the premises of the Company or
outside such premises where such behaviour is related to or
connected with the employment.
3) Rule 5(17)- Commission of any act, which amounts to a
criminal offence involving moral turpitude
4) Rule 5(20)- Commission of any acts subversive of discipline
or of good behaviour
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
17 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5) Rule 5(29)- Attending or holding meeting other than in the
course of duty within the Company's premises without prior
written permission of the Competent Authority
6) Rule 5(38)- Interference or riotous or disorderly or
indecent behaviour in the premises of the company.”
11. Though the word ‘grave misconduct’ is not defined under
the Rules, the same has to be examined under the facts and
circumstances of the case. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in D.V.Kapoor, supra, myriad situation may arise depending on the
ingenuity with which misconduct or irregularity is committed, on the
grounds of charges, it may be noted that assault on superior and
disrupting the office, cannot be spared as it amounts to gross
indiscipline.
12. In Hombe Gowda Education Trust and another vs.
State of Karnataka and others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 430, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized the need to maintain discipline
in industrial undertakings. In para-30 of its judgment, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held thus:
“30. This Court has come a long way from its earlier
viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
18 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the
industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen
was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast
industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this
Court it has been noticed that how discipline at the
workplaces/industrial undertaking received a set back. In
view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may
not now be proper to allow the employees to break the
discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of
law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance
with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141
of the Constitution of India, as noticed in the decisions
noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal
would not normally interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed by the employers unless an
appropriate case is made out therefor. The Tribunal being
inferior to that of this court was bound to follow the
decisions of this Court which are applicable to the fact of
the present case in question. The Tribunal can neither
ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow
the same.”
13. In V.Ramana v. A.P.SRTC and others reported in (2005)
7 SCC 338, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:
“11. The common thread running through in all these
decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
19 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the
Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury
case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the
choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court
should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator.
The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in
decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the
conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by
recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course
if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it
would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the
Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”
14. In M.P.Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma reported
in (2005) 3 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:
“9. In the case on hand, the employee has been found
guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the work
place, obviously in the presence of other employees. This
clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
20 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Discipline at the workplace in an organization like the
employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working
of the organization. When an employee breaches such
discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not
open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the
view that the punishment awarded is shockingly
disproportionate to the charge proved. We have already
referred to the views of this Court. To quote Jack Chan,
"discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour which
helps maintain social order and contributes to the
preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of
society at large".
……………………………………………………………………….”
15. In Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. V.Adikandasahu reported in
1960 (1) LLJ 522, the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the use of
abusive language against a superior, justified punishment of
dismissal.
16. In the backdrop of legal principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed herein above, it cannot be held that
the nature of charges framed against the applicant would not come
within the ambit of gross misconduct to withhold the pension
continuing the proceedings under Rule 61(4) of the Rules. Being
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
21 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Union leaders, law cannot be taken to their hands to disturb the
working atmosphere of the office i.e., to enter into the office of AGM
(NWO) Chintamani and interfering with the functioning of that
office, sans taking approved leave (unauthorisedly absent) on the
date of the incident i.e., 04.01.2011, further physically assaulting an
employee. Creating chaos and indiscipline in the office thereby
manhandling the office staff/officer would certainly comes within
the ambit of ‘grave misconduct’.
17. Now the next question would be, whether imposing the
penalty of 25% pension cut for combined service of DOT and BSNL
permanently to the applicant, is proportionate to the proved charges.
18. The applicant was the office bearer functioning as
Divisional Secretary of BSNL Employees Union, whereas one Shri
S.S.Shankeen, applicant in OA No.250/2024 was the District
President. Similar charges were issued to the said Shri S.S.Shankeen
and the same punishment of compulsory retirement from service at
the first instance, was issued. Subsequently the same was set aside by
this Tribunal and confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
reserving liberty to the competent Disciplinary Authority to pass
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
22 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to which, the
punishment order has been issued by the competent authority
imposing of penalty of 25% cut in monthly pension for combined
service of DOT and BSNL for a period of 8 years in the case of Shri
S.S.Shankeen – applicant in OA No.250/2024. In our considered
view, the present case also ought to have been concluded by imposing
the similar punishment of 25% cut in monthly pension for combined
service of DOT and BSNL for a period of 8 years on the applicant
instead of permanently as the proved charges are identical. Thus, the
quantum of punishment being disproportionate compared to that of
other employee, Shri Shankeen, involved in similar charges proved,
the similar punishment requires to be imposed on the applicant as
well.
19. The suspension period from 10.01.2011 to 31.03.2011
treated by the Disciplinary Authority as ‘dies-non’ without break in
service, treating the intervening period between the date of
compulsory retirement and date of reinstatement (30.12.2013 to
22.02.2014) as ‘on duty’, remains undisturbed as the suspension
period shall not be considered as on duty as per Rule 32(2) of the
Rules. Hence we pass the following:
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'
23 OA 126/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
O R D E R
i. The order of punishment dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure A5) issued
by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the powers conferred
under Rule 34 and 61(4)(2)(a) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 and in
conformity with DOT ratified order dated 24.02.2023, imposing
the penalty of 25% pension cut for combined service of DOT and
BSNL permanently, is modified to that of 25% monthly pension
cut for combined service of DOT and BSNL for a period of eight
years on the applicant.
ii. Ratification order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure A6) issued by the
Assistant General Manager (Estt. III), Respondent No.3, is also
modified reducing the penalty of 25% cut in monthly pension for
combined service of DOT and BSNL permanently, to eight years.
iii. OA stands disposed of in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
S 2026.10.16
15:18:45
SARALADEVI +05'30'