Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Shyam Bihari And Ors vs Bsnl on 19 August, 2025
-1- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING, RANCHI
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Pronounced on : 19.08.2025
CORAM
HON'LE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER (J)
I. OA/050/00151/2021
1. Shyam Bihari, Son of Sri Mahabir Prasad Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Hasdiha, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village- Tiebaris, P.S.-
Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger-811213.
2. Kamlesh Kant Yadav, Son of Sri R.P. Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Sarath, office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Madhupur, Resident of Village/P.O.-Pasopur,
District- Darbhanga-847306 (Bihar).
3. Indra Deo Yadav, Son of Sri Bengali Prasad Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Amrapara, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Pakur,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village- Dhaba,
P.S.,- Khesar District-Banka-813207 (Bihar).
4. Radhey Shyam Yadav, Son of Late Sukhdeo Yadav, Assistant
Telecomn Technician, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jamtara, Resident of Village- Pokharia, P.S.-
Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger-811213 (Bihar).
5. Raj Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Assistant
Telecom Technician, Pathargaon, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Godda, Resident of Village/.P.O.-
Harpur, District- Munger-813221 (Bihar).
6. Abhay Shankar Jha, Son of Sri Sita Ram Jha, Telecom Technician,
Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Madhupur, Resident of Village/P.O.- Pindaruch, P.S.- Kamtaul,
District- Darbhanga-847306. (Bihar).
7. Bhola Choudhary, Son of Late Arjun Choudhary, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Rajmahal , Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sahebganj, Resident of Vilalge- Dharhar,
P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga-846001 (Bihar).
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYARO
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA
BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841
fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4
758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI
OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
8. Lal Babu Choudhary, Son of Sri Bimal Choudhary, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Kathikund, office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village/P.O.- Pindaruch,
P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga-847306 (Bihar).
9. Mohan Choudhary, Son of Late Baleshwar Choudhary, Telecom
Technician, Mihijam, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jamtara, Resident of Village-Chahuta, P.S.-
Bisfi, District- Madhubani-847304 (Bihar).
10. Arun Kumar Son of Late Ganak Rai, Assistant Telecom Technician,
Mahgaon, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Godda, Resident of Village Gangpur Asthghar, P.S.
Athmalgola, District- Patna- 803211 (Bihar).
11. Dilip Kumar, Son of Late Kasim Sah, Assistant Telecom Technician,
Office of Sub Divisional engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Godda, Resident of Village- Dilawarpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna-
8011013 (Bihar).
........Applicants.
- By Advocate(s) :- Mr. M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Chief managing Director,
Jan Path, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Jharkhand Circle, ARTTC Building, Ranchi-835217.
3. The General Manager (HR), Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jharkhand Circle, ARTTC Building,
Ranchi-835217.
4. The General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Prabhat Kumar Sinha
II. OA/050/00306/2021
1. Shyam Bihari, Son of Sri Mahabir Prasad Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Hasdiha, Bharat
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYARO
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA
BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841
fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4
758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI
OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village-Tiebaris, P.S.-
Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger-811213.
2. Kamlesh Kant Yadav, Son of Sri R.P. Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Sarath, office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Madhupur, Resident of Village/P.O.-Pasopur,
District- Darbhanga-847306 (Bihar).
3. Indra Deo Yadav, Son of Sri Bengali Prasad Yadav, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Amrapara, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Pakur,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village- Dhaba,
P.S.,- Khesar District-Banka-813207 (Bihar).
4. Radhey Shyam Yadav, Son of Late Sukhdeo Yadav, Assistant
Telecomn Technician, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jamtara, Resident of Village- Pokharia, P.S.-
Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger-811213 (Bihar).
5. Raj Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Assistant
Telecom Technician, Pathargaon, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Godda, Resident of Village/.P.O.-
Harpur, District- Munger-813221 (Bihar).
6. Abhay Shankar Jha, Son of Sri Sita Ram Jha, Telecom Technician,
Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Madhupur, Resident of Village/P.O.- Pindaruch, P.S.- Kamtaul,
District- Darbhanga-847306. (Bihar).
7. Bhola Choudhary, Son of Late Arjun Choudhary, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Rajmahal , Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sahebganj, Resident of Vilalge- Dharhar,
P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga-846001 (Bihar).
8. Lal Babu Choudhary, Son of Sri Bimal Choudhary, Assistant Telecom
Technician, Kathikund, office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka, Resident of Village/P.O.- Pindaruch,
P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga-847306 (Bihar).
9. Mohan Choudhary, Son of Late Baleshway Choudhary, Telecom
Technician, Mihijan, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jamtara, Resident of Village- Chahuta, P.S.-
Bisfi, District- Madhubani-847304 (Bihar).
10. Arun Kumar Son of Late Ganak Rai, Assistant Telecom Technician,
Mahgaon, Office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Godda, Resident of Village Gangpur Asthghar, P.S.
Athmalgola, District-Patna-803211 (Bihar).
11. Dilip Kumar, Son of Late Kasim Sah, Assistant Telecom Technician,
Office of Sub Divisional engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYARO
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA
BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841
fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4
758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI
OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
Godda, Resident of Village- Dilawarpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna-
8011013 (Bihar).
........Applicants.
- By Advocate(s) :- Mr. M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Chief managing Director,
Jan Path, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Jharkhand Circle, ARTTC Building, Ranchi-835217.
3. The General Manager (HR), Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jharkhand Circle, ARTTC Building,
Ranchi-835217.
4. The General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Prabhat Kumar Sinha
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.: The above two OAs have been taken up together for hearing since the applicants of both the OAs are same and the prayer/issue involved in the OAs are also identical. The above OAs are thus decided to be disposed of by the following common order. OA No. 151/2021 is taken up as a lead case for convenience.
2. OA No. 151/2021 has been filed by the applicants (11 in number) seeking the following relief:-
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABISURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 "(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 25.02.2021 as contained in Annexure-
A/1.
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to command/direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the applicants after quashing of order dated 25.02.2021 for which they are legally entitled to.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant."
3. Similarly, OA No. 306 of 2021 has been filed by the same applicants seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 04.09.2021 as contained in Annexure-A/1 (a).
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to command/direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the applicants after quashing of order dated 25.02.2021 [para-1(a)] for which they are legally entitled too.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant."
4. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of these two OAs, as per the applicants, are as follows:-
(a) Applicants were initially appointed as Casual Labour in between 1985 to 1988 and they were granted temporary status w.e.f. 09.03.1998 as per the directive of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(b) Respondents issued an order dated 20.01.1999 whereby the orders of Temporary Status granted earlier were kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. Aggrieved by the same, applicants and other similarly placed casual labours filed OA No. 144 of 1999 before this Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2001 with direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicants while granting liberty to make an enquiry into the allegations of submitting forged certificates by the applicants giving them appropriate Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 opportunity to participate in the inquiry. In compliance with the above order, after submission of work diary the applicants were reinstated in service vide order dated 25.01.2002. On verification also the work diary submitted by the applicants was found correct.
(c) It is further contended by applicants that the respondents thereafter constituted Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) who met on 30.04.2002 and on its recommendation vide order dated 11.07.2002 the applicants were regularised as Regular Mazdoor against Group D post w.e.f. 06.02.2002.
(d) It is further contended by applicants that in spite of proper verification of documents and regularisation order as referred to above, a Three Man Committee was constituted by the respondents who conducted detailed enquiry with regard to genuineness of the initial appointment of applicants as casual labour. The said committee submitted their report on 12.07.2002 finding no fault in the appointment of the applicants.
(e) It is alleged by the applicants that after a lapse of three years, the respondents have constituted another committee for making enquiry on the same issue as per order passed in OA No. 144 of 1999 and as per direction of the CGMT enquiry was stopped on 02.03.2006. The applicants have further stated that the respondents never challenged the order dated 29.11.2001 passed in OA No. 144 of 1999 in which the question of appointment of the applicants by committing fraud was involved and that after conducting enquiry and verification of records the services of the applicants were regularised.
(f) Applicants being aggrieved with their non promotion and other benefits filed various OAs, namely, OA Nos. 838 of 2020, 347 of 2012, 783 of 2013, 157 of 2013, 158 of 2013, 71 of 2014 and 226 of 2014 which were allowed on 24.03.2015, 06.05.2015 and 08.01.2015 respectively while holding that the grant of temporary status on 09.03.1998 and regularisation against Group D posts vide order dated 11.07.2022 in respect of the applicants are quite legal and as such they are entitled to get the promotion to the post of Telephone Mechanic from the date of their juniors with all consequential benefits.
(g) When the respondents did not implement the said orders, the applicants filed CP Nos. 31 and 32 of 2015 in which orders of personal appearance was issued.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABISURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-7- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
(h) It is averred by the applicants that the respondents in anguish to the said contempt notice issued order of termination on 28.05.2015 on the same ground of forged experience certificate against which the applicants preferred OA Nos.
424 and 430 of 2015 in which the Tribunal stayed the termination order on 09.06.2015. The writ petition CWJC No. 11211 of 2015 preferred by the respondents before Hon'ble Patna High Court against the interim order dated 09.06.2015 was also dismissed on 27.08.2015. Thereafter, the respondents cancelled the said termination order dated 09.06.2015.
(i) The applicants have further alleged that on the same issue the respondents issued a charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 after more than 25 years from the date of appointment which compelled the applicants including one Shri Dilip Kumar to file OA No. 132 of 2017 and OA No. 335 of 2017. This Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed OA No. 335/2017 on 01.08.2017 whereby the chargesheet dated 29.12.2016 was quashed. The writ petitions preferred by the respondents before Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand in WP(S) No. 5032 of 2017 and before Hon'ble Supreme in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 29394 of 2018 was also dismissed vide orders dated 17.01.2018 and 02.11.2018 respectively.
(j) The applicants have submitted that OA No. 132/2017 preferred by the applicants including Shri Dilip Kumar challenging the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 was disposed of on 11.04.2018 (Annexure A/5) directing the respondents to conduct a comprehensive enquiry and initiate action against the senior officials guilty of omission and commission which perpetuated the alleged fraud. The respondents were granted mandatory six months time for doing the same and till such time the charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 in respect of the applicants was to be kept in abeyance with direction that if aforesaid enquiry and follow up action was not taken against senior officials within six months the charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 will be deemed to be quashed and set aside. The applicants have mentioned that neither the enquiry against the senior officers has been concluded within six months nor till date such senior officials have been punished and therefore on this ground also the action of respondent no. 3 subjecting the applicants to proceedings in furtherance of charge memo is contemptuous, unwarranted and illegal.
(k) It is further submitted by applicant that the respondents have issued charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 against 12 persons including the applicants for same and similar allegations which was challenged by them in two sets of OAs, Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-8- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 i.e. OA 335/2017 (Shyam Bihari & 4 Others) in which Shri Raj Kumar Yadav is applicant no. 5 and OA No. 132 of 2017 [Abhay Shankar Jha & 5 Others] in which Sri Dilip Kumar is respondent no. 6. But this Tribunal clearly allowed OA No. 335/2017 which has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas OA 132/2017 was disposed of with aforesaid directions as delineated in the preceding paragraph. Through Review Application No. 27/2018 preferred by applicants of OA 132/2017 a prayer was made for adhering to the same principle and order passed in OA 335/2017 but the respondents preferred MA for extension of time in OA 132/2017. This was dismissed on 10.04.2019 due to expiry of six months time fixed by this Tribunal in OA No. 132/2017.
(l) It is contended that the respondents in the meanwhile to avoid personal appearance in the said contempt case have implemented the order passed in OA No. 157 of 2013, OA No. 158 of 2013 and OA No. 71/2014 and granted promotion to the applicants to the post of Telecom Technician vide order dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure A/14).
(m) It is alleged by the applicants that when the respondents BSNL did not succeed in their foul game to oust the applicants from service they filed false criminal case against some officials including applicants vide Deoghar PS Case No. 94/2019 under Section 409,420, 467,468, 471 and 120B of IPC for the same allegation of procuring appointment on forged Working Certificate. The applicants then moved Learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar wherein they were granted protection which was later recalled on 22.05.2019. Thereafter the respondents in anguish placed the applicants under suspension vide order dated 24.05.2019 on the basis of FIR and recalling of the protection order by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar. The applicants were later granted anticipatory bail on 26.06.2019 by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in ABA No. 3691 of 2019 and ABA No. 3690 of 2019.
(n) The applicants then filed OA No. 752/2019 against the suspension order. After grant of anticipatory bail, the applicants submitted representations on 29.06.2019, 01.07.2019 and 09.07.2019 followed by reminders before the respondents for revocation of suspension order and only on 28.10.2020, said suspension order was revoked but no arrear was paid. In the meanwhile, the respondents commenced enquiry proceeding against some of the applicants on the basis of same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 against which OA No. 58 of Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-9- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 2019 has been filed. Interim order was granted on 16.01.2019 in the said OA which was finally allowed on 22.01.2020.
(o) In the meanwhile, respondent no. 3 issued orders dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure A/7) against Shri Raj Kumar Yadav and Shri Dilip Kumar, both applicant no. 5 and 6 in OA No. 335/2017 and OA No. 132 of 2017 respectively for appearing in the departmental enquiry against the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 which had already been set aside by the Tribunal and also by the Hon'ble High Court with liberty to the respondents to enquiry against the above two persons with respect to their education certificate and not with respect to their alleged forged documents. Aggrieved with the above order those applicants preferred OA No. 58 of 2019 in which this Tribunal initially granted stay of the departmental proceeding on 16.01.2019 (Annexure A/8) and finally allowed the OA on 22.01.2020 (Annexure A/9).
(p) It is further alleged by the applicants that the respondents again issued letter on 03.03.2020 whereby they have decided administrative review of their initial order dated 09.03.1998 whereby temporary status was granted which, accordingly to the applicants, is not only illegal, arbitrary, unjust, un- constitutional, colourable exercise of power, ill-motivated, punitive but also against various various orders of this Tribunal including Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same point. The applicants then submitted representation submitting that review is not tenable in the light of the fact that their engagement and order dated 09.03.1998 had been held legal upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
(q) The applicants have further alleged that the in the meanwhile, the respondents issued another order dated 25.02.2021 calling the applicants on 03.03.2021 for administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998 which is without any authority over the judicial orders so passed. The applicants have further submitted that time and again applicants have been made scapegoat but the judicial forums deprecated the impugned action of the respondents. This leads to filing of OA 151/2021 in which interim protection was granted on 02.03.2021.
(r) The applicants of present OA No. 151 of 2021 got surprised to receive another order dated 04.09.2021 whereby under para-1(a) the respondents BSNL have decided to review the original DPC dated 30.04.2002 as contained in Annexure A/5 (OA No. 306/2021) after more than 20 years without any disclosed Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-10- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 reason when the applicants have already been regularised in service. It is alleged that the respondents are time and again harassing the applicants and only to oust the applicants from service by hook or crook and they are making effort to declare the DPC dated 30.04.2002 as illegal. The applicants have challenged the competence of CGMT, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi as it has not made any request for review of DPC dated 30.04.2002 to the Corporate Office, New Delhi. The applicants of OA 306/2021 have assailed the order dated 04.09.2021 in which ad-interim relief was granted on 15.09.2021 by this Tribunal with direction that whatever be the recommendation of DPC qua the applicants, the same shall not be executed till further order or without prior permission of the Tribunal.
5. The respondents have filed written statement in both the OAs in which it is stated that the applicants have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and they have suppressed material fact which has an important bearing in disposal of the instant OA.
5.1. It is contended that in pursuance of order dated 11.04.2018 passed in OA No. 132/2017, competent authority of BSNL vide letter dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure R/1) instituted departmental investigation under the chairmanship of GM (Vigilance), CTD, Kolkata.
The Investigation Report dated 13.09.2018 was duly considered by the competent authority and follow up action in pursuance to said report was made and accordingly entire matter was referred to SP/CBI/ACB, Dhanbad vide letter dated 14.09.2018. The CVO BSNL letter dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure R/3) appended a tabular statement showing contemplated actions against identified BSNL officer. The entire matter was followed up by SP, CBI/ACB, Dhanbad upto 24.12.2018 and thereafter the matter was referred back to CVO, BSNL. Accordingly, CVO, BSNL vide its letters (Annexure-III and Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-11- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 IV) found total 28 persons (14 officials and 14 TSMs) involved in possible malafide. Five officials and one TSM have since expired, FIR was directed to be filed against 22 persons. The matter was then forwarded to TDM, Dumka for filing appropriate FIR as place of occurrence of action was Deoghar/Dumka and accordingly FIR was made against 22 officials out of which 9 persons are BSNL officers and 13 persons are Mazdoors and out of these 13 persons 11 persons are the applicants in the present OAs. In para-15 of the written statement the respondents have elaborated the instances of fraudulent submission, fraud, perpetuated fraud, conspiracy, collusion, malafide etc. found during departmental investigation.
5.2 It is stated that on detection of fraud and perpetuated fraud Jharkhand Telecom Circle vide its letter dated 29.04.2019 forwarded two proposal of primary review, (i) Administrative review of the then TDE, Dumka's order dated 09.03.1998 as per which TSM status was conferred to 134 mazdoors, and (ii) Legal Review of CAT, Patna order dated 29.11.2001 in OA No. 144/2019. The said proposal was duly considered and approved by BSNL CO, New Delhi vide its letter dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure R/7 in OA 151/2021). Accordingly, vide memorandum dated 31.10.2019 show cause notice was issued to Shri B.C. Yadav (Retd.), the then TDM, Dumka who submitted his reply on 31.12.2019. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure R/8) show cause notice was issued to all 13 Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-12- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 beneficiaries mazdoors out of which 11 mazdoors are the present applicants. The applicants then raised issues of defect of documents vide letters of different dates as mentioned in para 20 and 22 of written statement which were addressed by submitting clear and readable copy to all mazdoors vide letters dated 16.07.2020 and 30.09.2020. The above mazdoors have raised the same objection of defect of document once again.
5.3 It is further submitted that in view of complexity of investigation reports, the show cause memorandum dated 03.03.2020 was considered by CGMT, Jharkhand Circle and accordingly it was decided to refer the administrative review to BA level committee. A circle level committee was then constituted for administrative review vide modified order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure R/11) and a modified office order dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure R/10) was issued. Accordingly, in order to provide reasonable opportunity to all the beneficiary mazdoors vide order dated 25.02.2021 they were directed to appear before the review committee on 03.03.2021 at ARTTC Office, Ranchi. Review Committee met on 03.03.2021, review proceeding (Annexure R/12) was conducted and next date was also fixed.
5.4 It is further submitted that consequent upon finding of this tribunal with regard to fraud and perpetuated fraud, BSNL has undertaken holistic review of entire transaction with the approval of Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-13- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 competent authority. It is only after a detailed comprehensive enquiry in pursuance of direction of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 132/2017 quantum and extent of perpetuation of fraud was known to the BSNL. Accordingly, department is reviewing decisions taken by these guilty officers in accordance with law.
5.5 Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 16 SCC), the respondents have defended their stand of administrative review.
The respondents have also mentioned that order dated 29.11.2001 in OA No. 144/1999 has been obtained by misleading the Tribunal without pointing out the order dated 03.06.1999 wherein the Tribunal held that CAT has no jurisdiction. It is further mentioned that office of TDM, Dumka deliberately suppressed the materials facts with regard to above order of this tribunal.
5.6 The respondents have further submitted that since the orders in OA No. 430/2015 and OA No. 335/2015 have been implemented by BSNL as per direction of the Tribunal after the orders attaining finality there is no legal impediment that exists as on date for undertaking administrative review by BSNL in accordance with law and more particularly when CP 108/2019 In OA 132 of 2017 and OA No. 444/2020 are still pending before the Tribunal.
5.7 In the written statement filed by the respondents in OA No. 306/2021, the respondents apart from the above mentioned facts Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-14- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 have also enclosed the office orders dated 04.09.2021 [Annexure R/12 to R/14, R/13 being the impugned order] and letter dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure R/15) with regard to the meetings of the review committee and daily proceeding sheet dated 24.09.2001 (Annexure R/16) for review of DPC for original DPC dated 30.04.2002.
6. In the rejoinder filed in OA No. 151/2021 the applicants have denied the contentions as made in the WS and reiterated the submissions as made in the OA. The applicants have further submitted that the comprehensive enquiry has been completed only on 14.01.2019 which is evident from letters dated 14.01.2019 and 18.11.2019 (Annexures P/1 ) which is much beyond the expiry of six months period but only to mislead this Tribunal the respondents have suppressed these materials facts. It is further submitted by applicants that the respondents have purposely not brought the Committee Report dated 22.08.2016 which was produced before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court which has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble High Court on 17.01.2018. It, according to the applicants, goes to say that action of the respondents is only punitive, arbitrary, contemptuous and without their authority.
The applicants in their rejoinder in OA No. 306/2021 have denied the contentions made in the written statement and submitted that after quashing of his appointment of Shri K.K. Singh to the post of CGMT, Jharkhand Circle by this Tribunal vide order dated Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-15- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 15.12.2020 in OA No. 238/2020, Annexures R/9 dated 06.01.2021, R/10 dated 19.02.2021 and R/11 dated 25.02.2021 issued with the approval of Shri K.K. Singh, treating himself as CGMT, Jharkhand Circle is illegal and without his competence and thus the aforesaid actions are quire derogatory. It is further alleged that the impugned orders are not only contemptuous but also against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 22.01.2020 in OA No. 58 of 2020 as contained in Annexure A/18 (filed by applicant no. 5 and 11 of present OA) which was decided looking into the order passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court dated 17.01.2018 as contained in Annexure A/10 and upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 02.11.2018 as contained in Annexure A/11 wherein the engagement of applicants have been held to be just and cannot be interfered with. It is further averred that this Tribunal had directed on 11.04.2018 in OA 132 of 2017 against the senior officers and not against the applicants as is evident from para 20 and 21 of the order.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record carefully.
8. First of all, the citation used by the respondents is clearly distinguishable as in this particular case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 16 SCC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had first set aside the order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana before justifying the decision of Land Acquisition Authority. Learned Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-16- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing relied on the recent decision of this Tribunal dated 09.04.2025 in OA No. 444 of 2020 filed by Shri Abhay Shankar Jha and Shri Mohan Choudhary (two of the applicants in the instant OAs) which was allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 calling the applicants to appear in the departmental enquiry in respect of charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 and submitted that the decision of the respondents for administrative review is bad in law since the matter of engagement of applicants has been held to be just which was upheld upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. After hearing the parties and perusal of record, we find that the only question to be decided in this matter is whether the respondents BSNL is competent to conduct administrative review of the matter once the judicial review has been made over the decision of the administrative officials. Administrative review is the process by which a Government authority re-examines its own decision or the decision of a sub-ordinate authority within the same administrative system. It cannot be camouflaged to review the decision of an administrative authority, which was made in compliance of the judicial order or a decision which has been barred by a judicial order to be taken by the administrative authority.
10. We also note that in an identical matter, i.e. OA No. 335/2017 filed by Shyam Bihari and 4 Others this Tribunal quashed the charge Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-17- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 memo dated 29.12.2016 vide order dated 1st August, 2017. In the writ petition preferred by the respondents against the above order, the Hon'ble High Court did not find any fault in the order of the Tribunal and liberty was granted to the BSNL to proceed against Shri Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip (Dilip Kumar) with respect to testimonials of educational qualification only. The SLP preferred against the above order of Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the order of the Tribunal quashing the charge memo dated 29.12.2016 has attained finality and nothing remains to be adjudicated upon. The subsequent order dated 13.11.2020 calling the Applicants to appear in the Departmental Enquiry in respect of Charge Sheet dated 29.12.2016 has become redundant. Moreover, the OA No. 58/2019 preferred by Shri Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip Kumar was allowed and the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 in respect of charge memorandum dated 29.12.2016 was quashed and respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh charge memorandum relating to educational testimonials of applicants and not for all the charges which are part and parcel of Memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016. It is also noticed that the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in OA 132/2017 was never challenged in the higher judicial forum and thus the said order has attained finality. It is also admitted that the respondents BSNL have not completed enquiry within the stipulated period as directed by the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal from time to time. Though the contention of the Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-18- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021 respondents is that since they have enquired in the matter they may be allowed to go ahead with the charge memo, but we find that this enquiry was never completed and MA preferred for extension of time for compliance of the Tribunal's order was also dismissed. In fact it is the argument of the counsel for respondents that they conducted a preliminary inquiry and requested CBI for detailed investigation. When CBI refused they lodged an FIR in Deoghar Town PS Case No. 94/2019 against the officers/officials. Hence, their stand that they have completed the enquiry is also not tenable because when the respondents have handed over the case to police for investigation then it can be clearly inferred that at the most they have levelled allegations against the accused persons. There is no reason to presume before the completion of the investigation that their allegations will be proved to substantiated. Hence, they cannot proceed further in this direction.
11. On the pretext of administrative review, that is a process by which an administrative authority re-examines its own decision or the decision of a lower functionary within the same administrative system, they are trying to camouflage the decision to review the previous act of an administrative authority which has been done in compliance of judicial order as well as the act of not proceeding ahead with the departmental enquiry for lack of judicial sanction to do so.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYARO DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-19- OA/051/00151/2021 with OA/051/00306/2021
12. In view of above observation and discussion made herein above, the OAs are allowed in following terms:-
(i) The impugned Orders dated 25.02.2021 and 04.09.2021 as contained in Annexure-A/1 and Annexure-A/1 (a) in OA No. 151/2021 and OA No. 306 of 2021 respectively are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants as per the rules within a period of three months from the date of this order.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) All pending MAs stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
Srk.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYARO
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841 fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4 758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI OP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 16:00:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0