Ram Deo vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

th
Reserved on 07 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 1036 of 2018


th
Allahabad this the 27 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A



Ram Deo S/o Late Brijnath aged about 64 years R/o Vill. Gajai Kol P.O. Baksuri
Distt. Gorakhpur.
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Om

Versus
1. Union of India through Chairman cum Managing Director Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. BSNL Bhawan, Harishchandra Mathur Lane New Delhi-110001
2. Chief General Manager (Telecom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Eastern U.P.
Telecom Circle, Hazratganj Lucknow-226001
3. Principal General Manager (Telecom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Gorakhpur Telecom S.S.A., Shastri Chowk Gorakhpur-273001
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. D.S. Shukla

O R D E R

The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following relief(s): -
“A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dt. 19.3.2016 passed by Resp. no. 2 and the order dt.
19.12.2017 passed by Resp. no. 1 respectively (Annexure 1 & 2 to original
application).
B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to impose any cut in pension as
stipulated in the order dt. 19.3.2016 and direct the respondents to
recalculate the entire pensionary benefits, as if the order dt. 19.3.2016
has not been passed and pay the entire arrears thereof, as well as the
entire arrears of salary during the suspension period of applicant, from
7.9.2011 to 17.2.2013 along with interest upon the entire payable
amount.
MANISH MEHROTRA
C. To grant any other relief for which the applicant is entitled for in
the circumstances of the case, including consequential reliefs.
D. To award the cost of the present O.A. in favour of the applicant.”

2

2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that
the applicant was appointed on 01.05.1974 as Telegraph Man in Post &
Telegraph and thereafter he was promoted from time to time and
ultimately he was promoted as Sub-Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 8.12.2004.
The entire service period of the applicant is unblemished and has been
throughout satisfactory. However, on 18.02.2013, applicant was issued a
charge sheet alleging therein that he has extended ISD facility to certain
subscribers without verifying their details, which caused revenue loss to
the BSNL. The charges levelled against the applicant were vague in as
much as he had neither any role to play in the verification process nor in
extending the alleged ISD facility. The applicant was also not afforded
any first stage advice of vigilance as such he denied the charges levelled
against him. However, without considering the reply made by the
applicant, the disciplinary authority appointed inquiry officer on
06.04.2013. On 03.04.2014, applicant requested the inquiry officer to
supply him certain relevant documents to enable him to defend his case.
The inquiry officer while adjourning the inquiry for 23.5.2014 allowed
applicant's request and directed the Presenting Officer to supply all the
documents mentioned therein. However, none of the documents were
supplied to the applicant on 23.05.2014, next date fixed by the Inquiry
Officer. The Presenting Officer on 05.08.2014 supplied merely few
documents and most of the documents were denied on the ground of
being not available. Even the call details of the respective subscribers,
which in any case were available, have not been supplied to the applicant.
On the directions of this Hon'ble Court Inquiry Officer submitted the
inquiry report wherein the charges, levelled against the applicant were
held to be proved. Thereafter, the inquiry report was sent to Chief
Vigilance Officer and second stage advice was obtained, but the same was
also not being supplied to the applicant on the ground of being
MANISH MEHROTRA
confidential. Vide order dated 19.03.2016, the respondent No. 2 imposed
the punishment upon the applicant whereby his pension has been reduced

3

to the extent of 20%. Thereafter, applicant filed a revision before
respondent No. 1 on 09.08.2016. The respondent No. 1 also rejected the
revision of applicant on erroneous and non-existent grounds vide order
dated 19.12.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of respondents,
the applicant has filed the present O.A.
3. The respondents have filed the counter reply stating therein that
the applicant was not only responsible to check the physical record, but
he should also ensure that process of verification done by subordinate
staff and Field Officer had been proper completed or not however, the
applicant failed to do so. It is submitted by the respondents in the
counter reply that the outgoing facility of ISD subscribed should be
disconnected after reaching on prescribed 110% of credit limit by CSR In-
charge but as a commercial officer, applicant failed to check address audit
and paying habit verification with TRA/Commercial wing in a time frame
of 24 hours. It is further submitted that the applicant is assuming in
himself that the TAP facility is not available in MTNL network but he
himself failed to perform his duty properly at the primary stage of
providing of ISD & associated facility and revenue realization from
outstanding payment list generated by zonal billing centre which resulted
as occurrence of huge unpaid bill amount to BSNL. It is further submitted
by the applicant that the applicant was served with the charge sheet due
to his negligence and not due to any conspiracy. It is also submitted by
the respondents that all the relevant and available documents were
provided to applicant by the Presenting Officer after permission of Inquiry
Officer. The respondents taken the shelter of circular dated 29.11.2012
st
submitted that providing of CVC’s 1 stage advice with charge sheet to
accused is not mandatory. The respondents have submitted that
providing of ISD and International roaming with conference facility etc.
are sensitive mater and checking of each and every steps of such cases is
MANISH MEHROTRA
great responsibility on every officer in hierarchy. It is submitted that the
Inquiry Officer was submitted its report on the basis of sufficient cogent

4

material/evidence. The respondents have also submitted that the case of
applicant does not fall under Rule-61 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 as the
disciplinary proceedings started before the retirement of applicant. The
applicant has been awarded punishment on sufficient ground of lapses in
duty as alleged in charge sheet and the quantum of punishment is based
on the merit of the stated that the case. It is further respondents have
not flouted any of the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Hence, the O.A. being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
4. The applicant has also filed the rejoinder reply reiterating the facts
mentioned in the O.A.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on
record and considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the
parties.

6. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 19.03.2016
whereby his pension has been reduced to the extent of 20% and the
revisional order dated 15.12.2017 whereby the punishment order was
upheld. The principal question for consideration in the present O.A. is
whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant and
the consequential orders dated 19.03.2016 and 19.12.2017 can be
sustained in law, particularly in view of the applicant's grievance
regarding non-supply of relevant documents, non-furnishing of vigilance
advice, and alleged denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

7. The applicant has retired from service on 31.07.2013 and prior to
five months of his retirement, the charge sheet dated 18.02.2013 was
issued. We have gone through the charge sheet, which contained only
one charge i.e. Article-I, which is quoted herein below: -
MANISH MEHROTRA
“Article-I
That the said Shri Ram Dev Commercial Officer while functioning
as Commercial Officer O/o GMTD Gorakhpur (did not scrutinized the

5

documents required for ISD facility hefore forwarding the files for sanction
of ISD with post paid-mobile connection 8004935784 02975785,
80004935262 8004935764 8004935741and 8004935742 which were
allotted two cach in the name of Shri Vijay. 85 N Block, Dibya Nagar,
Gorakhpur, Shri Mahendra Kumar. H.No- C-93. Dibya Nagar, Gorakhpur,
Shri Kushal Singh, E Block, H. No. 34, Dibya Nagar Gorakhpur
That the aforesaid Shri Ram Dev, Commercial Officer, O/o GMTD
Gorakhpur, did not check the documents submitted by customers for
providing ISD facility before processing the files for approval of ISD
facility.
That the aforesaid Shri Ram Dev, Commercial Officer processed the
case for provisioning of ISP facility on the mobile numbers already having
conference facility and similarly processed the case for provisioning of
conference facility on mobile numbers already having ISD facility and did
not observe the rules and regulation of BSNL resulting a loss of Rs.
76,03,147/- (Approx) to the BSNI. which is still unpaid and all the three
subscribers are absconding.
Thus by his above act, the said Shri Ram Dev. Commercial Officer.
Oo GMTD Gorakhpur committed grave misconduct. failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to his duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a public servant thereby contravening the provisions of
Rule-4(1)(a) to (e) and 5(8) & 5 (25) of BSNL Conduct, Discipline &
Appeal Rules, 2006.”

In the above charges, it is alleged that the applicant did not
scrutinize the documents required for ISD facility and did not properly
examine the documents, submitted by the customers for providing ISD
facility or conferencing facility. Counsel for the applicant submitted that
as per charges, the applicant has issued conferencing facility to three
subscribers already having ISD facility and provided ISD facility to three
subscribers already having conferencing facility. Counsel for the applicant
submitted that these numbers were already allotted to the subscribers
and alleged charge is only with regard to providing ISD/Conference
facility to the existing customers. It is further relevant from the record
that with regard to communication, the applicant has no role as physical
MANISH MEHROTRA
verification and other processing was done by the field staff namely Ram
Vriksha (Phone Mechanic), Atta Hussain (Phone Mechanic) and Sri V.P.
Singh (SDE/Field Officer of the Area) and for further request to provide

6

ISD/Conference facility to the existing customers, due process has been
adopted and being Commercial Officer in the Office of Principal General
Manager, the applicant has to scrutinize the record of these subscribers
and paid/unpaid bill, which was online, therefore, these cases were
forwarded for verification and formal order by the General Manager who is
competent to sanction the same. The submission of counsel for applicant
is that the procedural lapses or negligence is not on the part of applicant
as he is not the person to initiate the communication after checking the
relevant record. It is incumbent upon to Field Staff, Phone Mechanic or to
SDE/Field Officer of the area and being Commercial Officer, he did on the
basis of documents, which were required and after satisfying with the
same, same was forwarded to the General Manager for approval. There is
no ulterior motive or for seeking any benefit by providing this facility.
Further, from the record, it is relevant that the bill dated 09.01.2011 of
these subscribers raises a huge amount of more than Eleven Lakh as
outstanding and it is the duty of concerned exchange to examine or
remind the subscribers with regard to such transaction against the
security amount and in the instant case, the numbers were issued by the
B.S.N.L. However, the cause of action with regard to this transaction
appears within the M.T.N.L. region. So, in such a huge loss, there was no
role of applicant and the punishment of 20% cut of pension/post
retirement cannot be justified merely on the ground that there is a
negligence in scrutinizing the document. Counsel for the applicant further
submitted that the negligence or procedural lapse does not amount to
misconduct in departmental proceeding unless there is a bad motive,
dishonesty or gross negligence amounting to dereliction of duty and in the
instant case neither the motive nor the dishonesty has been proved
against the applicant by the Inquiry Officer. The charge-sheet dated
18.02.2013 alleged that the applicant had failed to discharge his duties
MANISH MEHROTRA
properly in connection with the provision of ISD facilities to certain
subscribers, resulting in financial loss to BSNL. The applicant denied the

7

charges and disputed his responsibility for the alleged irregularities. Per
contra, the respondents have submitted that the applicant, being a
responsible commercial officer, was required to ensure proper verification
of subscribers and compliance with the prescribed procedure before
extending ISD and other associated facilities. According to the
respondents, the applicant failed to discharge these duties, thereby
exposing BSNL to financial loss. The first issue requiring consideration is
the applicant's specific allegation that, despite his request dated
03.04.2014, the documents required for effectively defending himself
were not supplied in their entirety. The pleadings indicate that the Inquiry
Officer had directed the Presenting Officer to supply the documents
sought by the applicant. However, according to the applicant, only few
documents were furnished on 05.08.2014, while the remaining
documents were stated to be unavailable. The applicant has also
specifically complained that the call details of the subscribers concerned,
which were material to the allegations, were not supplied. The
respondents have asserted that all relevant and available documents were
supplied with the permission of the Inquiry Officer. However, a general
assertion regarding the supply of documents does not, by itself, resolve
the specific grievance raised by the applicant. The material question is
whether the documents sought were relevant to the charges and whether
their non-supply impaired the applicant's ability to effectively cross-
examine witnesses, rebut the evidence relied upon by the department, or
establish his defence.
8. So far as not providing the complete list of relied upon documents,
which is the basis for alleged misconduct, which form basis of any
disciplinary proceeding, without providing such documents is in violation
of principle of natural justice and Presenting Officer or the Inquiry Officer
ought to produce the same and in absence thereto, the applicant could
MANISH MEHROTRA
not demonstrate his innocence. It is also submitted that the CVC advice
has not been provided to the applicant, which is contrary to law settled by

8

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union of India V. R.P. Singh
2014 (7) SCC 340’ and finding so recorded by the Inquiry Officer is
perverse. It is also submitted that there is violation of Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India as the other staff such as Phone Mechanic,
field staff and S.D.E. were exonerated while the applicant has been held
responsible for the loss caused to the B.S.N.L. Therefore, the punishment
of 20% cut in pension for a period of five years cannot be justified as
compared to the charges levelled against the applicant. In the
punishment order dated 19.03.2016 and revisional order dated
19.12.2017, the respondents have not considered these aspects while
imposing the punishment. It is evident that the applicant's liability cannot
be determined merely by reference to his designation or hierarchical
position. The department was required to establish the specific duties
entrusted to him, the particular acts of omission or commission
attributable to him, and the evidentiary basis connecting such omissions
with the alleged irregularities. A conclusion unsupported by the evidence,
or one reached without affording the employee a fair opportunity to meet
the case against him, cannot be sustained merely because the charges
have been recorded as proved in the inquiry report.
9. The imposition of a penalty affecting pensionary benefits has
serious civil consequences. Such an order must, therefore, be founded
upon a procedurally fair inquiry, relevant evidence, and a reasoned
consideration of the employee's defence. The revisional authority, in turn,
is required to consider the grounds raised in revision in accordance with
the applicable rules and cannot dispose of material objections by merely
reiterating the conclusions of the disciplinary authority. In the present
case, the applicant has raised specific objections concerning the non-
supply of relevant documents, non-disclosure of vigilance advice, and the
evidentiary basis of the findings recorded against him. These objections
MANISH MEHROTRA
go to the fairness of the proceedings and cannot be treated as mere
technical irregularities without examining whether they caused prejudice

9

to the applicant. The respondents have relied upon the circular dated
29.11.2012 to contend that furnishing first-stage CVC advice along with
the charge-sheet was not mandatory. However, the question concerning
the first-stage advice is distinct from the question whether the applicant
was denied access to material relied upon against him at a subsequent
stage. The validity of the proceedings must be determined by examining
the applicable rules and the actual procedure followed in the applicant's
case, rather than by relying upon a general assertion regarding
confidentiality or non-mandatory disclosure. Similarly, the respondents'
contention that Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 is not attracted
because the disciplinary proceedings commenced before the applicant's
retirement does not, by itself, answer the applicant's challenge to the
fairness and legality of the inquiry. The applicability of the relevant
service rules and the validity of the impugned penalty must be assessed
separately.
10. Upon consideration of the rival pleadings, we are of the view that
the applicant's grievance concerning the denial of an effective opportunity
of defence raises a substantial issue which directly affects the validity of
the inquiry and the consequential orders. The respondents' general denial
is insufficient to overcome such a challenge unless the inquiry record
establishes that the necessary material was made available, the applicant
was afforded a fair opportunity to meet the allegations, and the findings
were supported by relevant evidence. In these circumstances, the
impugned orders cannot be sustained without satisfactory compliance
with the requirements of natural justice and the applicable disciplinary
rules.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the
principles of natural justice and fairness governing departmental
MANISH MEHROTRA
disciplinary proceedings, we find merit in the O.A. to the extent that the
impugned disciplinary action cannot be sustained in the absence of a

10

demonstrably fair and legally compliant inquiry. Accordingly, the O.A. is
allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2016 passed by respondent
No. 2, whereby the applicant's pension was reduced by 20%, and the
revisional order dated 19.12.2017 passed by respondent No. 1 are hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondents shall restore the applicant's
pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules applicable to him and
release the consequential arrears arising from the setting aside of the
impugned orders, subject to adjustment of any amounts already paid.
The consequential exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, to the
extent applicable to the implementation of the directions herein.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.


(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)


/M.M/


MANISH MEHROTRA