CAT Quashes Retired BSNL Officer’s 20% Pension Cut, Saying ISD-Facility Inquiry Did Not Show He Had A Fair Chance To Defend

The applicant, a BSNL Commercial Officer who retired on 31 July 2013, was charged with failing to scrutinise documents before processing requests for ISD and conference facilities, allegedly resulting in an unpaid loss to BSNL of approximately ₹76 lakh.

In the disciplinary inquiry, he sought relevant documents, including subscribers’ call details; he maintained that only some documents were supplied and that the remaining material was said to be unavailable.

The disciplinary authority reduced his pension by 20% for five years by order dated 19 March 2016, and the revisional authority upheld the penalty by order dated 19 December 2017.

He challenged both orders before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness: an employee must receive a fair opportunity to meet the case against him, and non-supply of relevant material may invalidate disciplinary proceedings where it impairs that opportunity.

It also referred to Union of India v. R.P. Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 340, in connection with the applicant’s objection regarding non-disclosure of vigilance advice, but did not set out or independently determine the precise rule arising from that decision.

The Tribunal noted the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, including the provisions cited in the charge, and the respondents’ reliance on the 29 November 2012 circular; it did not decide the matter by resolving the applicability of Rule 61 or the circular.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s specific claim that, despite the Inquiry Officer’s direction, only some requested documents were provided and subscriber call details were withheld.

It held that the respondents’ general assertion that relevant and available documents had been supplied did not answer whether the material sought was relevant or whether its non-supply prejudiced the defence.

Because the objections concerned the fairness of the inquiry and the evidentiary basis for attributing responsibility to the applicant, the authorities could not rely merely on his designation or on the inquiry’s conclusion that the charge was proved.

The Tribunal also found that the revisional authority had to address material objections rather than simply reiterate the disciplinary findings.

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s pensionary benefits under the applicable rules and release consequential arrears, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.