BSNL Officer’s Three-Stage Pay Cut Stands Despite Inquiry Officer Finding Only 1 Of 10 Charges Proved: CAT

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Inquiry Officer’s findings and its consideration of the applicant’s representation complied with the applicable procedure and principles of natural justice

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicant had not established grounds for judicial interference and dismissed the OA.

It also directed

No order was made as to costs

01Facts

The applicant, an Assistant General Manager (ad hoc) in BSNL, was charged with ten articles of misconduct arising from his work while looking after the AGM (Planning) portfolio.

pp. 2–3, 11–12

Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found Article IX proved and the other charges not proved.

pp. 2–3, 11–12

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer on several charges, issued a disagreement memorandum, considered the applicant’s representation, and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for three years, with postponement of future increments.

pp. 2–3, 11–12

The Appellate Authority upheld the penalty. The applicant challenged those decisions before the Tribunal

pp. 2–3, 11–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Inquiry Officer’s findings and its consideration of the applicant’s representation complied with the applicable procedure and principles of natural justice

pp. 12–15

ii.2. Whether the findings and penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, as upheld on appeal, disclosed legal infirmity warranting judicial interference

pp. 10–11, 15

03Law Applied

Under Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the Inquiry Officer’s findings.

pp. 11, 13–14

If it disagrees, it must record tentative reasons, communicate them with the inquiry report, provide the charged employee an opportunity to represent, and consider that representation before recording its findings.

pp. 11, 13–14

This procedure gives effect to the requirements of fair opportunity under Article 311(2) of the Constitution

pp. 11, 13–14

Ram Kishan v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 157, and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, affirm that opportunity; a fresh inquiry is not automatically required merely because the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Inquiry Officer

pp. 14–15

In departmental proceedings, charges are assessed on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

p. 13

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been served with a disagreement memorandum dated 14 August 2014 and had submitted a detailed representation before the Disciplinary Authority made its final decision.

pp. 12–15

It considered the Disciplinary Authority’s order to have addressed the charges and concluded that the governing procedural requirements had been met

pp. 12–15

The Tribunal therefore found no procedural or other legal infirmity in the decisions of the Disciplinary, Appellate, or Reviewing Authorities that warranted its intervention

p. 15