Parties cannot challenge appellate competence after specifically seeking judicial directions for that authority to adjudicate the appeal.

The applicant, a Telephone Mechanic at BSNL, was issued a letter on 19.05.2014 seeking clarification for unauthorized absence since 16.11.2013

The applicant’s written response dated 24.05.2014 used the Hindi proverb “थूक कर चाटना” (to describe inconsistency) and the word “नालायक” (useless/incompetent) in reference to his superior officer

Consequently, he was charged with misconduct under Rule 4(1)(C) of the BSNL (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2006 for conduct unbecoming of a public servant

On 14.07.2014, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect

The applicant appealed to the Principal General Manager (PGM), who rejected the appeal on 01.10.2015

The applicant challenged these orders, contending that the language was colloquial, the letter was drafted by someone else, and the PGM was not the competent Appellate Authority (AA)

1. Whether the use of derogatory language and proverbs against a superior officer in official correspondence constitutes misconduct under the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006

2. Whether an employee can disclaim liability for the contents of an official representation on the grounds that it was drafted by another person, despite having signed it

3. Whether the appellate order was void for lack of jurisdiction when the applicant himself had previously moved the Tribunal to direct the PGM to decide said appeal

4. Whether the applicant's failure to disclose previous litigation warranted the imposition of costs

Rule 4(1)(C) of the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006, which mandates maintaining conduct becoming of a public servant

The doctrine of judicial review as established in Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which restricts Tribunals from reappreciating evidence or substituting findings of fact unless they are patently perverse or violate natural justice

The principle of "approbation and reprobation," preventing a party from challenging an authority's jurisdiction after specifically seeking its exercise

The Tribunal held that the determination of whether specific language is "indecent" falls within the competence of the DA; the use of terms like "useless" for a superior in official records is not an arbitrary ground for punishment

Regarding the drafting of the letter, the Tribunal found the applicant's plea specious, ruling that by appending his signature, he adopted the entire content and could not selectively disclaim offensive portions

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal noted that while the PGM was not the designated AA under the Rules, the applicant had specifically obtained a direction from the Tribunal in a previous OA (No. 491/2015) for the PGM to decide the appeal

Thus, the applicant was estopped from challenging the PGM's competence

The Tribunal observed that the applicant made a false declaration regarding the absence of prior litigation, which constituted an abuse of the legal process

It held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the punishment was not disproportionate

Due to the applicant’s "patent false declaration" regarding previous litigation (OA No. 491/2015) and his attempt to mislead the court, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹5,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund