Tribunals cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where proceedings are fair and findings are supported by evidence.

The applicant, a former Accounts Officer of BSNL, had earlier served the Department of Telecommunications for over 18 years. While posted in the BSNL Electrical Division, Salem, from 5 October 2010 to 31 August 2012, he was responsible for processing, accounting for, and making payments relating to the maintenance of 57 USO tower sites. It was alleged that he permitted payment of bills based on higher, unapproved diesel Consumption Per Hour rates, contrary to departmental guidelines, thereby causing a pecuniary loss to BSNL

Disciplinary proceedings under the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 were initiated on 2 March 2017. The applicant retired on superannuation on 31 May 2018 while the proceedings were pending, and was thereafter granted provisional pension under Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, with his retirement gratuity withheld pending conclusion of the proceedings

The Inquiry Officer found both charges proved. By order dated 24 January 2020, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a 20% cut in the applicant’s monthly pension for two years and directed recovery of proportionate pecuniary loss of ₹4,22,707. The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 5 July 2021

The applicant challenged these orders and sought refund of the recovered amount, along with interest for the period during which gratuity was withheld

1. Whether the departmental inquiry and the findings of misconduct were conducted and reached in accordance with law, natural justice, and the limits of judicial review?

2. Whether the respondents were required to conduct a common disciplinary proceeding against the Accounts Officers allegedly connected with the same financial irregularity?

3. Whether the Chairman and Managing Director of BSNL was competent to impose a major penalty after the applicant’s retirement?

4. Whether the penalty of pension cut and recovery of ₹4,22,707, as well as the consequential withholding of gratuity, was liable to be set aside?

The Tribunal applied the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, including Rule 36 governing proceedings for major penalties and Rule 61(4)(1), under which the Chairman and Managing Director was the competent disciplinary authority, subject to consultation with the administrative Ministry before issuance of the final order

The Tribunal also considered Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, under which provisional pension may be paid and gratuity withheld when departmental proceedings continue after retirement

The central principle governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings was drawn from Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610: a reviewing court or Tribunal should examine the competence of the authority, procedural compliance, observance of natural justice, relevance of the evidence, and whether the findings are supported by some evidence, but should not re-appreciate evidence, assess its adequacy or reliability, or interfere with punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate

The Tribunal further held that a common proceeding is within the discretion of the disciplinary authority and cannot ordinarily be claimed as a matter of right by a charged officer

The Tribunal found that the inquiry had been conducted over 15 sittings between August 2017 and November 2018, with adequate opportunity given to the applicant and his Defence Assistant. The Inquiry Officer analysed the charges, and the inquiry report was supplied to the applicant, who submitted his representation. The Disciplinary Authority considered that representation and passed a reasoned order before imposing the penalty

Applying P. Gunasekaran, the Tribunal declined to re-appreciate the evidence or reassess the merits of the findings, holding that the proceedings were fair, transparent, and supported by the inquiry record

The challenge based on the absence of a common inquiry also failed. The Tribunal held that the decision to conduct separate proceedings was a matter of administrative discretion, particularly as the disciplinary authorities were not identical, and the applicant had not demonstrated any denial of equality or prejudice arising from the separate inquiries

As to competence, the respondents produced the Ministry of Communications’ letter dated 7 January 2020 ratifying the proposed penalty before the final order was issued. The Tribunal therefore found no procedural defect in the CMD’s exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction after retirement

Since the penalty was imposed after a valid inquiry and was not shown to be arbitrary or grossly disproportionate, the challenges to the pension cut and recovery were rejected

Consequently, the penalty of a 20% cut in monthly pension for two years and recovery of ₹4,22,707 was upheld.

The prayers for setting aside the disciplinary and appellate orders, refund of the recovered amount, interest on the withheld gratuity, and other reliefs were rejected. The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs