MAHENDRA SINGH vs Bsnl

1 OA 677/2018


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
PATNA
O.A. 050/00677/2018
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
In the matter of:
Mahendra Singh,
Son of Late Ram Udgar Singh, Ex-Senior Telegraph
Office Assistant (TG), Office of the Principal General
Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Patna, Resident of House of R.B. Sinha, 89,
Road No. 7, Indrapuri, North Patel Nagar, Patna- 800024
(Bihar).

………….Applicant

VS.
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through the Chairman -
cum- Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.

3. The Principal General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat
th
Sanchar Nigam Limited, 5 Floor, Telephone Bhawan,
“R” Block, Patna- 800001.

4. The Deputy General Manager (Administration), Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of the Principal General
Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
th
Limited, 5 Floor, Telephone Bhawan, “R” Block, Patna-
800001.
5. The Chief Accounts Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Sanchar Sadan, Office of the Chief General
Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.

........ Respondents

For The Applicant(s): Mr. M. P. Dixit

For The Respondent(s): Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal


Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

2 OA 677/2018

O R D E R
Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following
relief:
“8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and
set aside the impugned Order dated 21.05.2018 issued by the Respondent
no. 1 as contained in Annexure- A/3.
8.2 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/
command the Respondents to accord/ release Final Pension, pay/ release
the entire amount of Death cum Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs.
434874/- and full Commuted Value of Pension alongwith statutory
interest thereupon from the date of superannuation up to the date of its
actual payment.
8.3 Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding
may be allowed in favour of the applicant.”
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the
applicant in the OA, are discussed and delineated herein under:-
The applicant superannuated from service on 31.01.2010
while serving as Senior Telegraph Office Assistant (TG) in the
Patna Telecom District. While serving as Head Clerk in the
Telephone Department, R-Block, Patna, he was implicated in a
criminal case registered by the CBI, Patna Branch, vide RC-7(A)/06
(Special Case No. 02/06), on the allegation of demanding illegal
₹
gratification of 300/- from one Sri Jayant Kumar.
During the pendency of the criminal case, the applicant was
permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation without
initiation of any departmental proceeding. After retirement, he
was granted provisional pension and paid his leave encashment,
GIS and GPF. However, his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
₹
(DCRG) amounting to 4,34,874/- and the commuted value of
pension were withheld on account of the pending criminal case.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

3 OA 677/2018

Subsequently, the learned Special Judge, CBI-III, Patna, vide
judgment dated 04.12.2012, convicted the applicant and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine
of ₹ 1,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Criminal
Appeal vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 57 of 2013 before the Hon’ble
Patna High Court, which was admitted on 23.01.2013 and is stated
to be pending adjudication.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 issued a memorandum dated
23.01.2014 calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why his
pension and gratuity should not be permanently forfeited. The
applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 14.02.2014, enclosing
the relevant order of the Hon’ble High Court and other
documents. According to the applicant, no further order in the
matter was communicated to him at that stage.
After a lapse of more than eight years from his retirement
and over four years from the issuance of the aforesaid
memorandum, Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order
dated 21.05.2018, communicated vide letter dated 19.06.2018,
imposing a permanent cut of 50% in the applicant’s pension under
Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, on the ground of his
conviction by the CBI Court.
The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order as arbitrary,
illegal and contrary to the applicable rules and judicial precedents.
He contends that the impugned order was passed despite the
pendency of his criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Patna High
Court and without compliance with the mandatory requirement of
consultation with the Administrative Ministry under Rule 61(4)(1)
of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. He further asserts that the
respondents failed to consider the judgment of the Division Bench
of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in N.K. Suparna v. Union of
India & Others , reported in 2005 (1) ATJ 420 .
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

4 OA 677/2018

The applicant further submits that, notwithstanding the
imposition of the 50% permanent cut in pension, the respondents
have continued to withhold the entire DCRG amount of
₹ 4,34,874/- and have not released the admissible commuted value
of pension. He claims that such continued withholding is contrary
to the applicable rules and constitutional guarantees under Articles
14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. He also asserts that
similarly situated employees who were subjected to compulsory
retirement following conviction have been granted their
admissible retiral benefits, whereas no departmental proceeding
was initiated against him before his superannuation.
Aggrieved by the impugned order and the continued
withholding of his retiral benefits, the applicant has approached
the Tribunal seeking appropriate relief, including setting aside of
the impugned order, release of his admissible retiral benefits and
payment of statutory interest for the period of delay.
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned
order dated 21.05.2018, imposing a permanent cut of 50% in the
applicant’s pension under Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, is
arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the
applicant had already superannuated from service on 31.01.2010
without any departmental proceeding having been initiated
against him, and the subsequent order of conviction dated
04.12.2012 is under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013,
which was admitted by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on
23.01.2013 and remains pending adjudication.
3.2
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
respondents failed to comply with the mandatory procedural
requirement of consultation with the Administrative Ministry
under Rule 61(4)(1) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, before passing
the impugned order. It is argued that the applicant’s reply dated
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

5 OA 677/2018

14.02.2014 to the show-cause memorandum dated 23.01.2014 was
submitted along with relevant documents, but the respondents
neither communicated any decision thereon nor properly
considered the applicant’s submissions before imposing the
penalty.
3.3
It is further contended by Learned Counsel for the applicant
that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the
principles laid down in N.K. Suparna v. Union of India & Others ,
reported in 2005 (1) ATJ 420 , as well as other judicial
pronouncements relied upon by the applicant. Learned counsel
argues that the respondents have acted inconsistently in dealing
with the applicant’s retiral benefits, particularly when, despite
imposing a permanent cut of 50% in pension, they have continued
₹
to withhold the entire DCRG amount of 4,34,874/- and the
admissible commuted value of pension.
3.4 Learned counsel for the applicant accordingly submits that
the continued withholding of the applicant’s retiral benefits,
without due consideration of the applicable rules and the
circumstances of his retirement, is unjustified and violative of
Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. It is further
argued that the prolonged withholding of these benefits has
caused grave financial hardship to the applicant, who is a senior
citizen, and his family.
4. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that
the applicant has no legal right to claim release of full pension, as
the penalty of 50% cut in pension on a permanent basis was
imposed by the competent Disciplinary Authority under Rule 61 of
the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, after considering the gravity of the
misconduct leading to his conviction, his reply to the show-cause
memorandum and the facts and circumstances of the case in their
entirety. The proposal to award penalty was sent to the
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

6 OA 677/2018

administrative Ministry and this was duly ratified by the
Department of Telecommunications (DoT) before passing the final
order.
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
applicant was caught red-handed by the CBI in the year 2006 on
the allegation of demanding illegal gratification while he was in
service. Although he superannuated on 31.01.2010 while the
criminal case was pending, he was subsequently convicted by the
learned CBI Court in 2012. It is argued that the mere pendency of
the criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Patna High Court does not
preclude the Disciplinary Authority from taking action under the
applicable rules on the basis of the conduct that led to the
applicant’s conviction.
4.2 In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relies
upon the Government of India, DoP&T, Office Memorandum
F.No. 11012/6/2007-Estt.(A-III) dated 21.07.2016, which permits
the Disciplinary Authority to impose an appropriate penalty on
the ground of conduct leading to conviction without waiting for
the expiry of the period for filing an appeal or for the decision of
the appellate court where an appeal has been preferred. It is
submitted that, following the conviction, the applicant was issued
a show-cause memorandum dated 23.01.2014 under Rule 61 of the
BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, providing him an opportunity to explain
why his pension, gratuity or both should not be withheld or
reduced, either wholly or partly, permanently or for a specified
period. The applicant submitted his reply, which was duly
considered before the competent authority took a final decision.
Learned counsel for the respondent specifically denies the
applicant’s contention that the departmental proceedings had been
closed and submits that the matter remained under consideration
until the proposed penalty was ratified by the DoT vide letter
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

7 OA 677/2018

dated 10.05.2018, whereafter the impugned order dated 21.05.2018
was passed.
4.3 With regard to the withholding of retiral benefits, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that no illegality was
committed in withholding the applicant’s gratuity and commuted
value of pension during the pendency of the relevant proceedings.
Reliance is placed upon Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, which provides that gratuity shall not be paid until the
conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and the
issuance of final orders thereon. Learned counsel also refers to the
decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Ramsiya Yadav v.
State of U.P. & Others (2016) in support of the proposition that
gratuity may be withheld until the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings. It is further submitted that the DCRG amounting to
₹ 5,25,063/- has already been released to the applicant vide office
letter dated 28.12.2018, following the passing of the penalty order
dated 21.05.2018.
4.4 Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
impugned order was passed in accordance with Rule 61 of the
BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, and the applicable Government of India
instructions, after affording the applicant due opportunity to
submit his explanation and following the principles of natural
justice. It is argued that the penalty was imposed after due
consideration of the gravity of the criminal misconduct established
against the applicant and after ratification by the competent
administrative authority. The respondents, therefore, maintain that
the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14,
16, 21 or 311 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant, by way of rejoinder to the
written statement filed by the respondents, submits that the
impugned action/order is without jurisdiction and authority of
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

8 OA 677/2018

law. It is contended that the applicant is governed by Rule 9 of the
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and any order imposing a cut in
pension or directing recovery of any loss from the applicant’s
retiral benefits can be passed only by the competent authority in
accordance with the said Rules, with the requisite approval of the
Hon’ble President, wherever mandated. The respondents could
not have invoked Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, to impose
a permanent cut in the applicant’s pension in derogation of the
applicable pension rules. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order, having been passed under the BSNL CDA Rules,
2006, without following the mandatory requirements of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972, is unsustainable in law.
The applicant further submits that the issue involved in the
present OA has already been considered by this Tribunal at Circuit
Sitting at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 497/2019, wherein it was held, as
contended by the applicant, that any recovery from pension or
imposition of a cut therein must be governed by the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, and the requisite order must be passed by the
competent authority in accordance with the said Rules.
Accordingly, the applicant contends that the impugned order
passed by the respondents under Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules,
2006, is not sustainable in law.
6. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused
material on record. I have considered the matter in its entirety and
come to the following conclusion:
6.1
The applicant has filed the present Original Application
challenging the order dated 21.05.2018, communicated vide letter
dated 19.06.2018, whereby a penalty of permanent cut of 50% in
pension was imposed upon him under Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA
Rules, 2006, consequent upon his conviction by the learned Special
Judge, CBI-III, Patna, vide judgment dated 04.12.2012. The
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

9 OA 677/2018

applicant has also sought release of his Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity (DCRG) and the admissible commuted value of pension,
along with interest.
6.2 The undisputed facts are that the applicant superannuated
from service on 31.01.2010 while the criminal case instituted
against him by the CBI was pending. He was subsequently
convicted on 04.12.2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
₹
imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of 1,000/-. His criminal
appeal against the conviction is stated to be pending before the
Hon’ble Patna High Court. Following the conviction, a show-cause
memorandum dated 23.01.2014 was issued to the applicant, and,
after consideration of his reply and ratification by the Department
of Telecommunications vide letter dated 10.05.2018, the impugned
penalty order was passed on 21.05.2018.
6.3 The principal contention of the applicant is that the
impugned order is without jurisdiction, as any cut in pension
could be imposed only under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, with the requisite approval of the Hon’ble President. It is
further contended that the respondents failed to comply with the
mandatory requirement of consultation with the Administrative
Ministry under Rule 61(4)(1) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. The
respondents, on the other hand, contend that the impugned order
was passed by the competent authority in accordance with the
applicable rules and instructions after affording the applicant an
opportunity to submit his explanation. The proposal to award
penalty was sent to the administrative Ministry and this was duly
ratified by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) before
passing the final order. There is clear mention of this fact in the
impugned order itself kept as Annexure A/3 of the O.A.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

10 OA 677/2018

6.4 This Tribunal has considered the Rule 61 of BSNL, CDA
Rules, 2006 that deals with disciplinary action against retiring
employees. The same is quoted as under:
"Rule 61. DISCIPLINARY PROVISIONS FOR RETIRING EMPLOYEES
(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) Disciplinary proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in
service whether before his retirement or during the re-employment, shall
after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceeding under
these Rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by
which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had
continued in service.
(3) During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the disciplinary
authority may withhold payment of gratuity for ordering the recovery
from gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
company, if the employee is found in the disciplinary proceedings or
judicial proceedings to have been guilty of offences/misconduct as
mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 or to have caused pecuniary loss to the company by misconduct or
negligence, during his service including service rendered on deputation
or on re-employment after retirement. However, the provisions of Section
7(3) and 7(3A) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should be kept in
view in the event of delayed payment in case the employee is fully
exonerated.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

11 OA 677/2018

(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 reemployment after retirement:
Provided that the Administrative Ministry shall be consulted
before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn,
the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of
rupees one thousand two hundred and seventy five (Rs. three thousand
five hundred from 01.01.2006).
(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 :
Provided that where the disciplinary proceedings are instituted by an
authority subordinate to the Chairman/Managing Director, that
authority shall submit a report recording of its findings to the
Chairman/Managing Director.
(4)(2)(b) The disciplinary proceedings, if not instituted while the absorbed
employee was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-
employment,-
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

12 OA 677/2018

(i) Shall not be instituted save with sanction of the Chairman/Managing
Director,
(ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four
years before such institution, and
(iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the
Chairman/Managing Director may direct and in accordance with the
procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in which an order of
dismissal from service could be made in relation to the absorbed employee
during his service.
(4)(3) In the case of the absorbed employee who has retired on attaining
the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any
disciplinary or judicial proceedings are instituted or where disciplinary
proceedings are continued under this rule, a provisional pension shall be
sanctioned with the prior approval of Department of Telecom.
(4)(4) Where the Chairman / Managing Director decides not to withhold
or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension,
the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of
the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a absorbed employee.
(4)(5) For the purpose of this rule,-
(a) disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date
on which the statement of charges is issued to the absorbed employee or
the pensioner, or if the absorbed employee has been placed under
suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint
or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is
made, and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in
the Court.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

13 OA 677/2018

Explanation
For the purpose of these rules "absorbed employee" means DOT
including erstwhile DTS/DTO employees who have taken permanent
absorption in BSNL."
Rule 61(4)(1) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, specifically provides
for action against absorbed employees after retirement in respect
of their pension and gratuity, including a permanent or time-
bound cut in pension. The said provision further stipulates that the
Administrative Ministry shall be consulted before any final order
is passed. In the present case, the respondents have asserted that
the proposed penalty was duly ratified by the Department of
Telecommunications vide letter dated 10.05.2018 before the
impugned order was issued. The impugned order reflects
compliance with the said requirement. Hence, the applicant’s
challenge on this ground cannot be accepted.
6.5 The contention that the pendency of the criminal appeal
precluded the respondents from imposing the impugned penalty
also cannot be accepted. The respondents have relied upon the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Office
Memorandum dated 29.11.1966, and DoP&T, Office Memorandum
F. No. 11012/6/2007-Estt. (A-III) dated 21.07.2016 which permits
the competent authority to take disciplinary action on the basis of
conduct leading to conviction without awaiting the decision of the
appellate court. Mere pendency of an appeal against conviction
does not, by itself, render the impugned order invalid. No material
has been placed before us to establish that the conviction has been
stayed or set aside.
Now we would like to examine the expression CONCLUSION of
the judicial proceeding. The trial court or the court of first instance
arrives at the CONCLUSION which basically means the reasoned
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

14 OA 677/2018

judgement on the basis of factual matrix and legally admissible
evidence and the issues of law put forth by all the concerned
parties. The appellate court judicially examines this
CONCLUSION or the decision of a trial court. The word 'appeal'
would mean the consideration before the superior court for the
purpose of examining the soundness of the decision of the trial
court by testing it mainly on the anvil of following correct
procedure rather than re-hearing the case. It is accepted that there
may be exceptions to this situation when the superior court may
hear the case afresh in certain exceptional matters, but that is only
an exception and not the general rule. The stage of appeal may be
there or may not be there in different cases, but it is not a
mandatory requirement that there has to be an appeal in each and
every case. The applicant has argued that he has filed an appeal
against his conviction by the CBI Special Court. But the fact
remains that conviction has not been set aside so far. He has
argued on the basis of various judicial pronouncements that the
conviction by the trial court has not attained finality so judicial
proceeding has not attained finality.
I intend to further elaborate and examine the situation in the
following manner.
Let us visualise the situation where a criminal case has been
registered against a Government officer. Since a criminal case has
been instituted against that officer, broadly speaking it can lead to
either of the two situations.
The first situation will deal with a scenario where the case has
ended in conviction of that officer by the trial court. This officer
who has since been convicted will be presumed to be, rightly being
accused of the charge at the moment. He decides to further agitate
the issue before the superior judicial forum by filing an appeal.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

15 OA 677/2018

This course is undisputedly legally available to him. Now he files a
representation before the respondent authorities to absolve him of
all the adverse consequences that have been inflicted on him
because of this conviction, on the grounds that his appeal is
pending even though the conviction has not been set aside and the
matter is still pending adjudication before the appellate court.
Hence, he interprets that the judicial proceeding cannot be
presumed to have attained finality. This has led him to believe that
he is entitled for all the benefits that should accrue to him as if he
has never been convicted. If this interpretation as sought to be put
by the applicant is accepted, it would have serious ramifications.
Once a Government servant is convicted he has to be treated as a
convict for all purposes . For all purposes means for the purpose of
pension also. It does not appeal even to common sense that a
convict should be paid pension till the judicial proceedings attain
finality. A Government officer, who is convicted, will employ all
the means at his command to delay the hearing of the appeal. It
will not be in the interest of the society at large to pay pension to a
convicted Government officer. Moreover, it will not act as
deterrence for the like-minded Government officer. If such an
interpretation is placed, it will give the message that despite
conviction, a Government officer will get pension till the finality of
judicial proceedings. This cannot be the intention of the legislature
to indefinitely delay the option available to the Government
authorities of taking the decision and wait for the outcome of
appeal and then only pass an order under relevant service rules.
Now let us think of an alternative scenario in which the same
person, against whom a criminal case was registered and
investigated/ tried by the trial court was also subjected to
departmental proceeding on the basis of his being charge-sheeted
in that criminal case. Subsequently, the criminal case ended in his
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

16 OA 677/2018

acquittal. Now, he demands that adverse consequences of say
withholding pension or gratuity from the date of his being held
guilty in the consequent departmental proceeding should now be
set aside because of his acquittal in criminal case, and he should be
granted all the benefits that are due to him. The respondent
authorities decide not to grant him all these benefits on the
grounds that they have challenged the acquittal, and the judicial
proceeding has still not attained finality, and hence he will have to
wait for his pensionary benefits or other favourable consequences
that are due to him.
Again, this can also not be accepted, and this is definitely a
situation, where the resourceful entity that is the applicant in the
first scenario and the respondent authorities in the second scenario
is trying to use their might to their advantage.
If the contention of the applicant is accepted in the instant case,
then the respondents' department will be at a serious disadvantage
because the rules are being interpreted, against them. This
situation cannot be allowed to prevail; hence it is very essential
that the interpretation of the word “till the conclusion of judicial
proceeding” should be interpreted in the manner that it will end
with the proceeding in the trial court or the court of first instance.
It will be pertinent to mention that the interpretation of the
expression "conclusion of judicial proceeding" has been dealt
with in a plethora of judgements and opposing views are available.
A large number of such decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as Hon'ble High Courts have been examined in O.A.
213/2019 of Mumbai Bench by a full bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal consisting of Hon'ble Justice A.K.
Srivastava, Hon'ble Justice Govind Selwikar and Hon'ble Mr.
Eapen who have gone through all such judgments and held the
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

17 OA 677/2018

view pronounced on 2nd November, 2023 that conclusion of
Judicial proceeding should end with the judgement of trial
court/court of first instance . This full bench was constituted to
settle this particular issue as different co-ordinate benches of the
tribunal were taking different views by selectively quoting
different rulings of superior judicial forum. None of such quoted
ruling has been declared as the binding precedent by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
This expression does not include the judicial proceedings pending
before the appellate court. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to
any benefit in view of appeal pending in the criminal proceeding
because the order of conviction still stands and it has not even
been suspended, leave apart being quashed or set aside.
6.6 As regards the applicant’s claim for release of DCRG, it is
evident from Annexure R/1 to the written statement that the
respondents have already sanctioned and released DCRG
amounting to ₹ 5,25,063/- vide letter dated 28.12.2018. Accordingly,
the prayer for release of the said amount does not survive for
consideration, subject to verification of actual payment.
6.7 However, Rule 61(3) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, deals
separately with withholding gratuity and recovery therefrom
during the pendency of proceedings, subject to the conditions
specified therein. The impugned order imposing a permanent cut
in pension does not, on the material placed before us, expressly
direct forfeiture of gratuity. The question of forfeiture or recovery
from gratuity, therefore, cannot be treated as having been decided
merely by the imposition of the pension cut. In view of the stated
release of DCRG, no further direction in this regard is called for in
the present proceedings.
Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal

18 OA 677/2018

6.8 In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to
the material available on record, this Tribunal finds no sufficient
ground to interfere with the impugned order imposing a
permanent cut of 50% in the applicant’s pension. The Original
Application, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The
prayer relating to DCRG stands disposed of in view of its stated
release. The applicant’s claim for commuted value of pension and
interest is also rejected insofar as it is founded upon the grounds
urged in the present Original Application.
6.9 There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Administrative Member

sl




Digitally signed by Sonali Lal
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench
Patna, OU=CAT PATNA BENCH PATNA, PostalCode=
800001, L=Patna, S=Bihar, STREET=NIYOJAN BHAWAN
1ST TO 4TH FLOOR D BLOCK INCOME TAX CIRCLE
PATNA 800001, Phone=
a962fb1c3612fdf6f21245a2c586ae14935231f5bcc163bd02c
Sonali 5ed76d3370f40, SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc533
ade9e38d5aed96, [email protected], CN=Sonali Lal
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 14:02:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
Lal