Disciplinary findings based on unproved documents and preliminary-inquiry statements cannot sustain punishment.

The applicant, a Junior Telecom Officer of BSNL, was functioning as SDE (MS)-cum-Nodal Officer at Paharia, Varanasi. He barred the incoming facility of mobile number 9453781568 on 6, 9 and 24 July 2012, allegedly at the subscriber’s request and on the basis of documents concerning the loss of the mobile phone.

A complaint was thereafter made alleging wrongful disconnection, and a charge-sheet was issued on 22 October 2012 under Rule 36 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006.

The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the departmental inquiry, held the charge “Not Proved” on 15 July 2014.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with that finding and, after seeking the applicant’s representation, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect on 25 March 2015.

The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 30 January 2017, and the order was communicated on 6 March 2017.

The applicant challenged the charge-sheet, punishment order and appellate order before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority could lawfully disagree with the Inquiry Officer’s finding of “Not Proved” and impose a penalty on the basis of documents and statements not duly proved in the regular departmental inquiry.

2. Whether the non-examination of the complainant, who was a material witness regarding the alleged customer dissatisfaction and wrongful disconnection, violated the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the alleged conduct of the applicant was shown to constitute misconduct under any specific rule or instruction applicable to him.

4. Whether the punishment order and appellate order were sustainable when founded upon an unsustainable disagreement note and unproved material.

The Tribunal applied the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters examines the legality, fairness and evidentiary basis of the decision rather than acting as an appellate forum for re-appreciating evidence, as stated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.

It relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, holding that a departmental inquiry is quasi-judicial, documents must be proved through appropriate evidence, and material collected during investigation cannot by itself constitute evidence.

Under Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 277, non-examination of an essential complainant or witness may prejudice the delinquent employee and violate natural justice.

J. Ahmed v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1022 was cited for the requirement that the alleged conduct must amount to misconduct in the service-law sense.

The Tribunal also relied on Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 873, and the principles in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, that oral evidence is necessary in major-penalty proceedings to prove the charges, preliminary-inquiry material cannot ordinarily be treated as substantive evidence in the regular inquiry, and documents not proved through witnesses cannot support a finding of guilt.

The relevant substantive service obligation arose under Rule 4(1)(a)–(d) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006.

The Tribunal found that the complainant, though cited as a witness, was not examined during the regular inquiry. Consequently, the allegation that the applicant’s conduct caused “customer dissatisfaction” was not established through the testimony of the person best placed to prove it.

The Disciplinary Authority relied on the complainant’s statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry and on other documents, but those materials had not been duly proved during the regular inquiry and could not be treated as substantive evidence against the applicant.

The Tribunal further observed that the Inquiry Officer had found the charge unproved and that the respondents failed to identify any specific rule or instruction prohibiting the applicant’s conduct or establishing that incoming, rather than outgoing, facility had to be barred in the circumstances.

The disagreement note did not independently and adequately demonstrate why the Inquiry Officer’s findings were erroneous; instead, it relied on unproved material and inferences.

Applying the principles in Roop Singh Negi, Hardwari Lal, Satyendra Singh and related authorities, the Tribunal held that the disagreement, punishment and appellate decisions lacked a lawful evidentiary foundation.

It quashed and set aside the charge-sheet dated 22 October 2012, the Disciplinary Authority’s punishment order dated 25 March 2015 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 30 January 2017.

The applicant was held entitled to all consequential service and monetary benefits, including re-fixation of pay and payment of arrears, by treating the matter as though no punishment order had been passed.

The respondents were directed to release the benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs, and all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.