Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Ramesh C Meena vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 2 July, 2025
::1 :: OA No. 01/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
Original Application No. 01/2016
Date : 02.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Ramesh Chandra Meena
Aged: 47 years (DoB being 01.01.1968)
Son of Manphool Meena
Presently serving as Director (CMS), DoT Cell, Ahmedabad,
& presently residing at Type V/24, P&T Colony,
Near Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite,
Ahmedabad 380 015.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M S Rao)
V/s.
1. Union of India
(To be represented through its Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology,
Department of Telecommunications,
Government of India, Sanchar Bhavan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001)
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(To be represented through its Chairman & Managing Director)
BSNL Hqrs., Registered & Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, H.C.Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi 110 001.
3. Central Vigilance Commission
(To be represented through its Director)
Satarkta Bhavan, GPO Complex
Block-A, I.N.A., New Delhi 110 023.
4. Union Public Service Commission
(To be represented through its Secretary)
Dholpur House, Shahajahan Road,
New Delhi 110 069.
5. The Controller of Communication Accounts,
Gujarat Telecom Region,
7th Floor, P&T Administrative Bldg.,
Opp. Khanpur Post Office, Ahmedabad 380 001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew R-2 & Mr. H D Shukla)
2025.07.09
KHAMBHATI NILESH
10:49:56
KANTILAL
+05'30'
::2 :: OA No. 01/2016
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial) Being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure A/1) issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the Inquiry Report dated 26.5.2012 (Annexure A/2), the UPSC's advice dated 13.6.2014 (Annexure A/3) & the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 10.9.2014 (Annexure A/4) imposing penalty upon the applicant of reduction to a lower scale in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with the further direction that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and after expiry of such period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments, as also being aggrieved with order dated 28.9.2015 (Annexure A/5) passed by the Revisionary Authority rejecting the applicant's review petition and supplementary review petition by upholding the aforesaid punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant herein has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Call upon the respondents herein to place before this Hon'ble Tribunal the entire original case file / noting file / documents which gave rise to the issuance of the impugned charge memorandum at Annexure-A/1 hereto and culminated into the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-A/5 hereto, and upon perusal of the said documents, your Lordships may be graciously pleased to:-
A-1. quash and set aside (i) the Charge Memorandum bearing No.8/20/2011/Vig.II dated 20.04.2011 at Annexure-A/1 hereto,
(ii) IO report dated 26.05.2012 (signed on 30.05.2012) at Annexure-A/2 hereto, (iii) the UPSC's Advice bearing F.No.3/485/13-S.I, dated 13.06.2014 at Annexure-A/3 hereto,
(iv) Order of Penalty being Order bearing No.8-20/2011-Vig.II dated 10h September 2014 at Annexure-A/4 hereto and (v) Disciplinary Authority's Order bearing No.1-03/2015-Vig.III, dated 28.09.2015 at Annexure-A/5 hereto, holding and declaring the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and without authority of law;
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::3 :: OA No. 01/2016 A-2. issue appropriate directions commanding the respondent's herein to forthwith restore the pay of the applicant herein which was he was drawing prior to the passing of the impugned order of penalty at Annexure-A/4 hereto , alongwith all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay, etc., interest on arrears @ 18% thereon.
B. impose an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the respondents for compelling the applicant herein to resort to this otherwise litigation.
C. grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case."
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: -
2.1 The applicant, was served with a Questionnaire vide communication dated 28.6.2008 by the Vigilance Wing of BNSL, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, for investigation in respect of discrepancy in the purchase of store during the year 2004 to 2006 while he was as DE( planning), O/o TDM Bundi at the relevant time.
The applicant herein had replied to the said questionnaire of the CVC at the relevant time.
2.2 Upon submission of an investigation report by the BSNL and consequent upon referring the same to the Department of Telecom for first stage advice, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide OM dated 29.9.2010 had tendered its first stage advice of initiation of major penalty departmental inquiry proceedings against the applicant and other officers (Annexure A/8 refer).
Thereafter, while answering to the letter of Department of Telecom dated 28.10.2010, the CVC vide its OM dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure-A/9 refer) had reiterated its earlier advice for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the applicant herein and other officers including one Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi who was approving authority to purchase the store.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::4 :: OA No. 01/2016 2.3 Consequent upon CVC Advice, on 20.4.2011, while the applicant was working as DGM under GMTD, BSNL, Palanpur, he was served with a major penalty Charge Memorandum dated 20.04.2011 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging that while he was serving as D.E. Bundi, Rajasthan during the period 2004-2006 had made purchase of the stores from M/S IL, ITI Limited, Kendriya Bhandar and private firms etc., in violation of the extent rules and the procedure prescribed for such purchase and thereby caused loss to BSNL to the tune of Rs.11,84,166/-, Thus by the aforesaid act the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Public Servant.
The following charges framed against the applicant, which read as under:-
"Article-I Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena was working as DE, Bundi during the period 2004-2006. He while working as above processed purchase of stores for approval of the TDM on quotation basis. The financial powers of TDM for purchase of stores item on quotation basis on each occasion was Rs.10,000/- as per delegation of financial powers issued vide BSNL HỌ letter no 6-15/2000-EB dated 04/10/2001. The store items were purchased through quotation basis violating various BSNL guidelines thereby depriving BSNL of getting competitive bids through open tender. No efforts were made to verify the genuineness of the quotation and rate by the said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena.
The store requirement was taken from the field after getting the quotation from L/ITI Ltd. As such, the procurement of the store items were processed by the said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena, taking the artificial requirement. No efforts were made by said Shri Ramesh Chandrả Meena to verify the genuineness of the quotation & rate.
As per the letter of (1) AGM Vig) of ITI Ltd. vide No.COR/VIG/COM/BSNL/32/07, dated 05-11-2007, and (iii) AGM (Vig) of Instrumentation Ltd. vide No.LK/CVO/02/12-C/BSNL/07/421, dated 20-11-2007, the items were neither their proprietary items nor manufactured by them. The said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena did not confirm whether the items were proprietary item or not as required under Rule 154 of GFR 2005 (para 34 under Rule 128 of old GRFR), Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena also processed for approval for procurement of some decentralized items without valid authorization from Circle.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::5 :: OA No. 01/2016 Said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena processed for approval for the procurement of (i) Transient protective device at higher rate in comparison to the rate of the similar type of item purchased through tender by the Bharatpur SSA, this caused loss to BSNL to the tune of Rs.4,22,880 (ii) Solar Charger Controller at higher rate in comparison to the rate of the similar type of item purchased through tender by the MM wing of the circle office, Rajasthan circle, Jaipur, this caused loss to BSNL to the tune of Rs.3,22,920/- (iii) Cheque Collection Machine unauthorizly by misinterpretating and violating BSNL HỌ New Delhi order No. 2-19/2002-BSNL/TR, dated 30-07-2002 which caused loss to BSNL to the tune oft Rs.4,38,366/-. (Total Rs.422880 + 322920 + 438366 = Rs.11,84,166/-).
Thus, by the aforesaid acts, said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena violated the Rule 60 of FHB Volume 1 and Rule 6 of GFR (now Rule 21 of GFR 2005), Rule 154 of GFR 2005 (para 34 under Rule 128 of old GFR), Financial power delegation by BSNL HỌ Vide letter no 6-15/ 2000-EB dated 4.10.2001 && 28.02.2002, BSNL HO order No. 3- 2/2002-MMT/pt dated 04-07-2003, Para "Limited tender Route" of Procurement Manual 2003 issued vide order no 3-2/2002-MMT/Pt dated 4.07.2003 read with Para 31 to 36 under Rule 128 of old GFR, BSNL HỌ order no 60-8/2000-MMS/508 dated 21.06.2001, CGMT Rajasthan Circle Order No. SP 1-118/Procurement procedure/2003- 04/15 dated 14-1O-2003, Rule 203,264 & 265 of P&T Manual Vol. X , and BSNL HỌ Order No 2-19/2002-BSNL/TR dated 30-07-2002 & Circle Office letter No.TR 8-58/2002-03/36 dated 28-02-2003 while making during purchase of the stores from M/S IL, ITI Limited, Kendriya Bhandar, and private firms etc during the period 002 -2005 and caused loss to BSNL to the tune of Rs.11,84,166/-, Thus by the aforesaid act the said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena as mentioned above, failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Public Servant and thus violated Rule 3(1)
(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
Article-II Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena was working as DE, Bundi during the period 2004-2006. He while working as above processed for approval for the procurement of some store item on multiple occasion within a short period or even within the same financial year instead of purchasing at one time through tender. Thereby he split the store quantity with a view to bring the purchases within the financial power of the TDM.
By aforesaid acts Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena violated the provisions contained in the Rule 154 of GFR 2005 (para 34 under Rule 128 of old 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::6 :: OA No. 01/2016 GFR) and Rule 203,264 and 265 of P & T Manual Vol. X, and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Public Servant and thus violated Rule 3(1)
(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
Article-III Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena was working as DE. Bundi during the period 2004-2006. He while working as above while processing for approval for the store procurement cases in the aforesaid period and aforesaid office did not obtain the C form hence RST/CST was paid@ 8.15 to 10 %, instead of the concessional rate (4 %) against Form C. An amount of Rs.49.806/-, was paid in excess resulting loss to the tune of Rs.49,806/-to the BSNL.
Thus, by the aforesaid acts, said Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena violated the provision of Circle office letters no. SP1-118/Sales tax/02-03/51 dated 28/02/2003, 08/04/2003 & 28/04/2003 & 14/12/2004, Order No. SP 1-118/Procurement procedure/2003-04/15 dated 14/10/2003, during purchase of the stores from M/s. IL, ITI Limited, Kendriya Bhandar and private firms etc during the period 2002-03 to 2004-05 and caused loss to BSNL to the tune of Rs.49,806/- and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner in a manner of unbecoming of a Public Servant and thus violated Rule 3(1) (1), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
2.4 On receipt of the aforesaid Charge Memorandum, the applicant, vide his representation dated 09.05.2011 had denied the charges levelled against him and had also requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him an opportunity to present his case before the Inquiry Authority (Annexure A/10 refer).
Thereafter, vide Order dated 31.5.2011, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Inquiry Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant.
2.5 After the Presenting Officer had submitted his brief to the IO with a copy thereof to the applicant on 4.2.2012; the applicant had also submitted his detailed defence brief dated 6.2.2012 to the IO (Annexure A/12 refer).
2.6 On conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the IO had submitted his Inquiry Report dated 26.05.2012 (signed on 30.05.2012) (Annexure A/2) to the Disciplinary Authority, wherein the IO had recorded his 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::7 :: OA No. 01/2016 findings that the charges mentioned in the Articles I & III of the Charge Memorandum are partially proved whereas the charges mentioned in Article II stands proved.
On receipt of the said Inquiry Report, by agreeing with the findings of the IO, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the copy of the said IO's report to the applicant vide its Memorandum dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure A/13 refer) and directed the CO i.e. the applicant to submit his representation, if so desires, within the stipulated time limit.
2.7 Upon receipt of the said Memorandum dated 10.9.2013 alongwith the IO report, the applicant had submitted a detailed representation dated 9.10.2013 (Annexure A/14 refer) to the Disciplinary Authority and explained about his innocence and requested to drop the charges levelled against him.
2.8 Thereafter, vide communication dated 25.03.2014, the Disciplinary Authority sought UPSC's advice. In response to it, the UPSC vide its letter dated 13.6.2014 tendered its advise to the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of the penalty upon the applicant.
The copy of the said advised of the UPSC, was forwarded to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide Memorandum dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure-A/15) and had called upon him to make representation in this regard, if any, within 15 days.
2.9 Accordingly, the applicant had submitted a detailed representation dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure A/16) before the Disciplinary Authority.
2.10 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 10.9.2014 (Annexure A/4 refer) held that the charges against the applicant stands proved and by accepting the quantum of penalty as has been advised by the UPSC, the DA imposed penalty of "reduction to a lower scale in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with the further direction that the applicant herein will not earn increments 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::8 :: OA No. 01/2016 of pay during the period of such reduction and after expiry of such period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments" upon the applicant.
2.11 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of penalty dated 10.09.2014;
the applicant had filed the Review Application dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure A/17) to the competent authority under Rule 29A of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Thereafter, in the wake of receipt of certain crucial documents from the department under the RTI Act 2005 to substantiate his defense, the applicant had also submitted a supplementary Review Application dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure A/18).
However, the said review application(s) of the applicant has been rejected by the competent authority, vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015.
Hence, the present OA.
3. Mr. M.S.Rao, Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the prayers sought in this OA, mainly argued that :
3.1 It is submitted that the impugned charge sheet/ memorandum suffers from the vice of inordinate delay of 5 years from the date of alleged incident of the year 2004-2006. In this regard, it is submitted it is alleged in the charge memorandum dated 20.04.2011 that while he was working as DE(Plg.) in the year 2004-2006, he processed purchase of stores for approval of the TDM, on quotation basis in violation of the Rule 60 of the FHB Volume-I and Rule 6, 154 of GPR, 2005 and instructions contained in various letters of BSNL for purchase of the store.
Therefore, learned counsel would argue that solely on the ground of gross delay for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant the impugned order is required to be set aside.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::9 :: OA No. 01/2016 3.2 It is submitted that the allegations levelled therein do not constitute any "misconduct" within the meaning of the said expression as defined in CCS (Conduct) Rules. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the BSNL vide its letter dated 02.07.2015 (Annexure A/34) has issued further clarification on the "delegated financial powers" by stating that "considering the ambiguity in delegation of financial power, mere procurement from PSUs without tendering should not be construed as irregularity at SSA Level".
Therefore, learned counsel would also argued that it is well settled principle of law that any clarification issued by the competent authority on the subject would relate back to the date of issuance of the original authority. Hence, there cannot be disciplinary action/ inquiry be instituted on such allegation.
3.3 It is stated that applicant being the ITS Officer, the President of India (through its Hon'ble Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology - referred as "MOC & IT") alone is the competent authority who can accord approval as also to the draft charge memorandum. It is submitted that in the case of the applicant herein the impugned charge sheet at Annexure A/1 was issued without obtaining any formal statutory approval from the competent Disciplinary Authority.
Therefore, the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant is suffers from lack of competence and the same is vitiated on the same ground.
3.4 By referring to the information including the details of the 'Note Sheet' supplied by the Vigilance Department of DoT on 30.10.2014 under RTI Act, 2005 to the applicant (Annexure A/20), learned counsel for the applicant argued that the DoT had not obtained any approval from the MOC&IT either before the initiation of the impugned major penalty departmental inquiry against the applicant or while seeking approval to the draft charge memorandum prior to the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::10 :: OA No. 01/2016 issuance of the same to the applicant. He submits that the approval to the draft charge memorandum was granted on 20.4.2011 by the then Hon'ble Minister of State for Communication & Information Technology and the said authority was not competent to act as Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant.
3.5 Furtherance to the said submission, learned counsel would argued that another official namely one Shri Deokrishna, Jt.CCA (Admn) working in O/o Pr.CCA, DoT Building, New Delhi, sought information under RTI Act, 2005 from the President's Secretariat, Prime Minister's Office as also from DoT with regard to the powers delegated to the MoS(C&IT) in the matter of grant of approval to the initiation of any major departmental disciplinary enquiry against any Group 'A' Officer or accord approval to any draft charge memorandum in respect of any Group 'A' Officer, in response to it, vide communication dated 30.06.2015, the only detail supplied to the said officer that as per Office Order No.3 of 2012 dated 30.10.2012 issued by the DoT with approval from the then MOC&IT whereby it was informed that the "MoS for C&IT" came to be delegated power inter alia of dealing with all service and disciplinary matters as also appointment of Group 'A' Officers below and including the level of JAG, etc. (Annexure A/33, page No.391 to 394 refers).
3.6 Therefore, learned counsel argued that on a conjoint perusal of the aforesaid RTI documents, it can be seen that either prior to the initiation of the major penalty departmental disciplinary enquiry against the applicant or at the time of seeking the approval to the draft charge memorandum prior to its issuance to the applicant, the concerned authorities in the DoT, had not bothered to obtain the requisite approval from the then MOC&IT. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant vide charge memorandum is without any lawful competence and subsequent orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and by the Reviewing Authority are therefore, not tenable in the eyes of law.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::11 :: OA No. 01/2016 In support of the aforesaid submissions, by relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs B.V.Gopinath, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 352 learned counsel would argued that the entire departmental enquiry proceeding initiated against the applicant culminating into imposition of major penalty is ex facie without authority of law and on this ground alone, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside, as being without any authority of law.
3.7 Learned counsel would argue that even assuming without admitting that the impugned major penalty departmental proceedings was initiated with due approval of the competent authority, even than the impugned charge memorandum is not tenable for the reason that before calling upon the applicant to submit his statement of defence to the charge sheet dated 20.04.2011, the MoS(C&IT) had also taken a decision to nominate an IO and PO to conduct the inquiry against the applicant, which in turn goes to demonstrate that the aforesaid requirement of the applicant to submit his statement of defence/ representation to the impugned charge sheet was merely a formality.
Therefore, this conduct on the part of the said authority who had decided before hand to nominate IO and PO is illegal and is not sustainable in law.
3.8 Further, it is submitted that even though the relevant instructions and rules requires to obtain of the second stage advice from the CVC, but in the case of the applicant, no second stage advise was ever sought by the respondents. Thereby, the respondents failed to follow the guidelines of CVC and erroneously passed the impugned order.
3.9 Learned counsel would argue that even on the ground of procedural lacuna in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, the same is vitiated. In this regard, it is submitted that the IO has not conducted the departmental inquiry proceedings strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Rule 14 of the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::12 :: OA No. 01/2016 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, more particularly, the procedure proscribed under sub rule (18) of Rule 14 thereof. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer recorded its finding based on assumptions and presumptions and the said findings as well the conclusions run contrary and contradictory to the documents placed on record before the IO during the course of the inquiry.
3.10 Learned counsel would argue that while holding that charges contained in Article No.I is partially proved, the Inquiry Officer in support of the said conclusion, had not bothered to cite any rules or procedure which enjoin upon the applicant to verify the authenticity of the proprietary certificate by any PSU. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, in the course of the enquiry, the documentary evidence was placed to demonstrate that proprietary certificates were submitted by ITI and M/s. Instrumentation Limited (both are PSUs) and that being so, there was nothing more which the applicant was required to do in his behalf. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, the IO had recorded erroneous finding in respect to the said alleged Article of Charge-I. As such, there is no evidence to sustain the said charges levelled against the applicant.
3.11 Further, with regard to the allegations levelled in the Article II of the Charge Memorandum, the IO has failed to appreciate that that there was no splitting of store quantity in Bundi SSA. Therefore, the IO has failed to appreciate that there was no lapse of any kind whatsoever on the part of the applicant herein. It is reiterated that the procured store material in the present case was well within the delegated financial powers of the TDM and that being so, there was no irregularity whatsoever as alleged or otherwise. Thus, the said Article II of the charge memorandum is baseless and the same has been framed just for the sake of adding one more article in the Memo of Charge, that too without appreciating the crucial aspect as noted hereinabove.
3.12 Similarly, the IO, dealing with the Article of Charge III, has erred in law and in fact the very IO has duly appreciated the facts that (i) the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::13 :: OA No. 01/2016 applicant was the Divisional Engineer (Planning) of Bundi SSA and not the Head of the Bundi SSA, (ii) the matters relating to taxation were not in the domain of the applicant herein being a DE (Plng.) as they belonged solely to the domain of finance wing officers of the SSA, (iii) Bundi SSA was registered under CST only in January 2006 and it was not registered under CST at the time of purchases done before January 2006 and that being so, there was no way any tax concessions could have been availed by Bundi SSA by issuing 'C' forms in that period.
Therefore, it is submitted that in this nature of the situation, it is not legal and proper on the part of the IO to accept the allegation and submissions of the prosecution side by holding that there is some force in the prosecution arguments. In fact, the finding and conclusion recorded by the IO in his Inquiry report are contrary to the material on record and thus, the same is perverse and liable to be set aside.
3.13 It is further submitted that the proposal for purchase of stores was processed through other officers like Sub-Divisional Engineer (Planning), Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer of the Bundi SSA as well. However, on the recommendations of CVC, the said officers were issued recordable warning (without issuance of charge sheet under Rule 14 or Rule 16) {Reference no. para 3 (iii) of Annexure-A/8} whereas in the case of the applicant who was working as DE, (Plg.) Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle and Shri Shri Sudhir Gupta (the then TDM, Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle) departmental proceedings were conducted against them under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Not only that in the case of the applicant, he has been awarded major penalty, which is nothing, but an act of discrimination on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. In other words, it is the grievance of the applicant that he has been discriminated by being singled out for harsh punishment whereas other officers involved in the purchase process were not punished.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::14 :: OA No. 01/2016 Therefore, the impugned order is passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus, the same is not tenable.
3.14 Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that TDM, Bundi was delegated with financial powers by the BSNL Corporate Office for procurement of store items. As such, as per written instruction of the said TDM, Bundi, the applicant had processed the said proposal. In other words, the said TDM, Bundi, was the competent authority for approval of procurement of purchase of Store and purchase of store items referred in the charge memorandum was approved by the said TDM.
3.15 In this regard, further it is stated that for the very same incident and allegation of purchase of store as alleged against the applicant, a charge memorandum dated 19.4.2011 was served upon against the Shri Sudhir Gupta the then TDM Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle who is the competent authority to purchase the store items. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules against said TDM, Bundi (namely one Shri Sudhir Gupta,) the I.O. in his Inquiry report dated 01.03.2013 recorded his finding that Articles of Charge-I & III are proved partly and the charge in Article -II is proved against the said Shri Sudhir Gupta .
Thereafter, in the case of said TDM, Bundi, the Disciplinary Authority by considering the charge memo, Inquiry Report dated 01.03.2013 & the representation of the C.O i.e. Shri Sudhir Gupta thereon, held that the charges i.e. Article of charge I & II not proved and the Article charge-III is partly proved. Thereafter, the DA tentatively decided to impose the major penalty upon said TDM, Bundi and forwarded the case to the commission for their advice in the matter. Thereafter, by accepting the advice of the Commission dated 27.04.2015, the DA vide order dated 23.09.2015 and corrigendum order dated 23.10.2015 thereon, imposed the following penalty upon the said Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi :
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::15 :: OA No. 01/2016 "Reduction of lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with the direction that he will not earn increment of pay during this period of such reduction and after expiry of this period, reduction will not have the effect of postponement of future increments".
3.16 Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 23.09.2015, the said Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi had preferred a Review Petition dated 04.03.2016 under Rule 29-A of CCS (CCA) Rules. On receipt of the said review application, the Reviewing Authority referred the case to the UPSC for advice in the matter.
3.17 In response to the said reference, the UPSC tendered their advise on 03.02.2017 wherein it has been recommended that the penalty order should be modified to that of "Censure" and the Review Petition of said Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, DE, Bundi (Rajasthan Telecom Circle) should be accepted to that extent.
Thereafter, the Competent Reviewing Authority vide order/memorandum dated 29.03.2017 while supplying the copy of said UPSC advice dated 03.02.2017 to the said Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle had informed him that the advice of the UPSC has been tentatively accepted and he may make representation as he may wish on the UPSC advice within 15 days of the receipt of the memorandum.
In this regard, further it is submitted that as per the knowledge of the applicant herein said TDM, Bundi has been subsequently awarded penalty only that of "Censure".
3.18 Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that since in the case of Shri Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi who was approving authority to purchase the store and was confronted with a similar charge with regard to the very same transaction has been awarded lesser punishment i.e. of "Censure" whereas in the case of the applicant, he has been awarded major penalty as mentioned herein 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::16 :: OA No. 01/2016 above. It is submitted that the applicant is required to be treated equally as he being the co-delinquent in the same alleged transaction of purchase of store by following the mandate enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Since, the applicant has not been treated equally by the Competent Authority, the impugned order(s) are bad in law.
3.19 Further, it is submitted that in another identical case i.e. of one Shri K.B.Meena, the then TDM Chittorgarh SSA who was confronted with similar charge as in the case of the applicant herein, the UPSC had taken a view and advised to the Disciplinary Authority that the same is not proved and that the said Shri KB Meena be exonerated accordingly (UPSC Memo No.F.3/54/2015-S.1 dated 23.09.2015 Annexure-A/36 refer).
3.20 Further, in the case of one Shri Sunil Sharma, the then GMTD, Hamirpur, the very UPSC in its advice dated 30.08.2012 had observed that when proprietary certificates are provided by the PSU of a Department, then there is no scope of doubt. The identical observations were also made by the UPSC in para 4.2.4 of advice tendered in the case of the aforeasid Shri K.B. Meena, as well.
3.21 Further, while tendering its advice to the Disciplinary Authority in the present case, the UPSC has gone beyond of the realm of the charges levelled against the applicant as the UPSC's advice with regard to the quantum of punishment is based on the observations which are without any evidence as many of them were neither held as proved by the IO (duly agreed to by the DA). UPSC's observations about the loss of revenue are totally preposterous in as much as while doing so the UPSC did not apply its mind.
3.22 Further, in the case of one Shri AK Gupta, GMTD, BSNL, Ajmer, the UPSC had observed that purchases were made by the charged officer through DG S&D rate contract and ITI Mankapur (a GoI Undertaking) 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::17 :: OA No. 01/2016 and as such there has been no financial loss suffered by the Government.
Therefore, it is submitted that advice tendered by the UPSC in the applicant's case is contrary to advices tendered in other cases of similar nature and thus, there is a total discriminatory attitude on the part of the UPSC in the case of the applicant.
3.23 It is submitted that while imposing the impugned penalty upon the applicant, the disciplinary authority failed to consider the representation of the applicant submitted against the UPSC advice and erroneously passed the impugned order. In this regard, it is also argued that in his representation he had requested the Disciplinary Authority that his case be considered in the light of the decision of the CVC in the similar case i.e. in case of one Shri Ravinder Kumar (ITS), the then DE (Plng) in O/o TDM, Barmar, wherein the CVC advised dated 15.04.2010 and advise dated 16.08.2010) the issuance of only a recordable warning instead of major penalty proceedings, yet the Disciplinary Authority has not given any heed to the same.
Thus, there is a total discriminatory attitude on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.
3.24 It is submitted that neither the Disciplinary Authority, nor the Revisional Authority considered the submissions of the applicant that he was not the Head of the SSA and was only a Divisional Engineer (Plng), yet the authority concerned had chosen to consider the applicant as 'Head of Bundi SSA' and held him responsible for approving the purchase and also for failure to avail Tax Concessions (CST/RST). In fact, the applicant was not holding the post of Telecom District Manager (TDM) Bundi (BSNL) and as such, all the purchases were approved by the then Telecom District Manager (TDM) Bundi exercising his delegated financial powers. The said TDM was also subjected to Departmental Inquiry and though he has higher responsibility than the applicant herein he has been awarded lesser 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::18 :: OA No. 01/2016 punishment of "Censure" i.e. minor penalty whereas in the case of the applicant he has been awarded major penalty which is not tenable in eye of law.
Therefore, Mr. M.S. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed by this Tribunal.
4. Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. By referring the said reply, learned counsel for the respondents mainly submitted as under :-
4.1 It is submitted that by way of the present O.A, the applicant is challenging the departmental proceeding initiated against him, which was held in accordance with the law and in compliance with the principles of the natural justice.
4.2 It is submitted that the respondents can initiate disciplinary proceeding against any erring officer as and when misconduct comes in light.
Further the CVC had considered the preliminary investigation report and observed that serious irregularities were made by the BSNL/DOT officials working under TDM, Bundi, Rajasthan, resulting in loss to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs to BSNL.
In view of the said serious lapse on the part of various officials, the CVC had advised for major penalty proceedings against then TDM, CAO & IFA and then DE and issuance of recordable warning against AO and then SDE (Plng). The CVC advise was considered and was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., then MOS(C&IT). Accordingly, charge sheet was issued.
4.3 It is submitted that MOS(C&IT) was delegated the power of Disciplinary Authority at the relevant time and MOS(C&IT) had given approval to initiate Disciplinary proceeding for major punishment against the applicant and hence contention of the applicant that the charge sheet had been issued without obtaining the approval of the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::19 :: OA No. 01/2016 competent authority is baseless. In support of the said submission, more particularly, in respect to allocation of works in the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to the Ministry of State, learned counsel for the respondents had produced the copy of clarification issued by DoT vide communication dated 04.09.2024 as well as the copy of the Office Order No.08/2009 dated 02.06.2009, Office Order No.09/2009 dated 02.06.2009, Office Order No.1/2011 dated 18.02.2011.
4.4 It is further submitted that the approval of Disciplinary Authority was taken for appointing IO/PO, subject to receipt of denial of charge through the statement of defense from the applicant as per the procedure laid down in the Rules.
4.5 It is also submitted that in terms of DOPT's OM dated 26/9/2011, the second stage consultation with CVC, except in those cases where consultation with UPSC was not required and the same had been dispensed with.
4.6 I t is submitted that UPSC had considered all aspects involved in the case and had considered all the relevant documents pertaining to the case including the representation of the applicant and then rendered the advised suggesting the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the applicant. It can be seen that the UPSC has considered each case separately and accordingly, while rendering the advised in the case of one Shri K B Meena, the UPSC observed that the said Shri K B Meena is required to be exonerated from the alleged charges. Thus, the grievance raised by the applicant against the advised of the UPSC is not tenable and as such recording the reasons, the UPSC recommended imposition of the penalty upon the applicant herein.
4.7 It is further submitted that every case is thoroughly examined by the Commission with the prime focus on upholding the principles of natural justice and gave an independent opinion, without any bias. Accordingly, the Commission tenders its opinion independently, on 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::20 :: OA No. 01/2016 the basis of thorough judicious and independent consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the IO, the evidence on record, documents made available by the Ministry, representations of the charged official has been tendered keeping in view of the specific allegations as contained in statement of imputations of misconduct which give a full and precise recitation of specific and relevant omissions and commissions against the applicant and the documents & records made available to substantiate the charges mentioned in articles. The advice of the Commission is self contained, self explanatory and well reasoned. However, the Commission's advice is not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority, who arrives at its own conclusions after taking into consideration the advice of the Commission.
4.8 It is also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the case of the applicant in its totality and hence order of punishment passed against the applicant is based upon correct appreciation of facts and evidences on record.
4.9 It is further submitted that the Commission is only an advisory body whose advice had been sought in the case in accordance with the requirement as laid down in Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India read with Regulation 5(1) of the UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulation, 1958. Since the advice of the Commission is not binding on the Government and as the cause of action contemplated against the decision of the Govt., the Commission has been impleaded in the instant case unnecessarily.
4.10 The charges levelled against the applicant are not vague in nature and the same are supported with the documentary evidence. All the relied upon documents (RUDs) had been supplied to the applicant herein. By following the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the departmental inquiry was held against the applicant. On conclusion of the said inquiry, the Inquiry Authority, by considering the submission/ defence of Charged 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::21 :: OA No. 01/2016 Officer (CO) i.e. the applicant herein and by analyzing the evidence on record had recorded his findings in the inquiry report dated 26.05.2012 that the charges levelled against the applicant stands established.
4.11 By following the procedure laid down in Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of the said IO's report to the applicant herein and had considered the representation of the applicant thereon. Thereafter, copy of the UPSC advice was also forwarded to the applicant and by considering the representation of the applicant thereon, the Disciplinary Authority by speaking order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure A/5 refers) held that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and accordingly, by considering the gravity of proved misconduct, the punishment has been awarded upon the applicant. The punishment awarded is not harsh in nature, and punitive order carries no stigma.
Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents argued that it can be seen that by following the provisions of Rule 14 and Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority had concluded the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant herein. As such, there is no lacuna in decision making process, therefore, the impugned order passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority is just and proper and the prayers sought by the applicant in this OA are totally misconceived and not tenable in eyes of law. Hence, the present OA deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
5. In rejoinder, besides reiterating the above submissions and refuting the averments contained in the reply filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the respondents had not provided any documentary evidence to prove that there was actually any delegation of power to MOS. As such, the entire departmental enquiry proceeding in instant case is void ab initio and, therefore, all the consequential actions taken by the respondents have no sanction of law and orders passed thereon are liable to be quashed by this Tribunal.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::22 :: OA No. 01/2016 5.1 Further, it is submitted that the investigation in the instant case was started way back in 2008 and the chargesheet was issued to the applicant on 20.04.2011 and the applicant had duly cooperated in the inquiry proceedings at all stages. However, the Disciplinary Authority as well the Reviewing Authority passed the impugned orders dated 10.09.2014 and dated 28.09.2015 respectively and that too after almost five years of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that as per the instructions/ guidelines issued by the DoP&T vide OM dated 14.10.2013 (Annexure RJ/1), the final orders are to be passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority within 18 months from the date of delivery of charge-sheet on the delinquent Govt. employee. However, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority failed to adhere to the said instructions/ time limit contained in the OM dated 14.10.2013, therefore, the impugned orders are not tenable in eyes of law.
5.2 Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment dated 6.4.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Limited vs. Ananta Saha (Civil Appeal No.2958/2011) to substantiate his submissions that it is a settled law proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same.
5.3 Further, in support of contention that discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted in the case of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 13.2.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & others (SLP (Civil) No.1334/2013) and contended that 'the doctrine of equality applied to all who are equally placed, even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::23 :: OA No. 01/2016 discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and another vs. N. Gangaraj reported in 2020 (3) SCC 423, would argue that in the present case it is evident that there is no irregularity in decision making process and, therefore, no interference is required under limited power of judicial. Hence, the applicant is entitled for any relief as prayed for.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned charge memorandum dated 08.04.2011 was issued by the incompetent authority and therefore, the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is ab initio void.
In support of the said submission, learned counsel would argue that the applicant herein being ITS Officer i.e. Group 'A' Officer, in this case, the President of India (through its Hon'ble Minister of Communication & Information Technology shortly referred as 'MOC&IT') alone is the competent authority who can accord the approval to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also to the draft charge memorandum. However, in the case of the applicant, the DoT has not obtained any approval from 'MOC&IT' either before the initiation of the major penalty, departmental inquiry against the applicant herein or to while seeking approval to the draft charge memorandum prior to the issuance of the same to the applicant, instead they have obtained the approval from the Hon'ble Ministry of State for Communication and Information Technology shortly referred as 'MoS'. Therefore, in absence of any delegation of power of the authority to any 'MoS' for initiation of any major departmental 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::24 :: OA No. 01/2016 inquiry against any Group 'A' officer, on the said sole ground the said proceeding instituted against the applicant is vitiated.
8.1 So far the aforesaid submission of the applicant is concerned, it is required to mention that the respondents had placed on record the copy of Office Order dated 02.06.2009 and 18.02.2011 and the subsequent clarification conveyed vide letter dated 04.09.2024 which abundantly made it clear that at the relevant time the MOC had delegated the power for deciding the service and disciplinary matters and also appointment of the Officer below and including the level of JAG and Director in DoT and Post to the Ministry of State for Communication & Information Technology (MoS).
8.2 It can be seen that in the case of the applicant, the impugned charge memorandum was issued on 20.04.2011 and at the relevant time, as noted hereinabove, the concerned MoS was the competent authority to decide all the service and disciplinary matters in respect to the officials including Group 'A' officers working under DoT and Posts. Undisputedly, the impugned charge memorandum dated 20.04.2011 was issued with the approval of the competent authority at the relevant time.
Therefore, in our considered view, the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned charge memorandum was issued without any lawful authority/competency, is not tenable in the eyes of law.
9. At this stage, it is profitable to refer, the judgment passed by the three Bench judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs S. Sree Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 held that:
"the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the inquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::25 :: OA No. 01/2016 prescribed in that behalf, and whether the Rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, with the authority entrusted with the duty to hold inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a Writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive act an independent findings on the evidence...."
9.1 In B C Chaturvedi Vs UoI & Ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "...the court, in a judicial review, may interfere only when the authority has conducted the proceeding in a manner inconsistent with the rule of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. Re- appreciation of evidence and nature of punishment is best left to the Appellate Authority and only when the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the Disciplinary Authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued".
9.2 In the case the State of Karnataka &Anr. Vs N Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 the Hon'ble Apex Court after referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of interference by the High Court and the Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review in respect to finding recorded by the enquiring authority and the disciplinary authority, it has been held in para 14 & 15 that:
Para 14 "......we do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the finds recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The findings that respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfere with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct".
Para 15 "...the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::26 :: OA No. 01/2016 department of authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of the facts recorded by re-appreciating evidence as if the courts are the Appellate Authority. We may notice that the said judgment is not noticed larger Bench judgments in S Sree Rama Rao and B C Chaturvedi as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Courts suffer from patent illegality and thus can not be sustain in law."
10. Thus, by keeping in mind the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex and the Hon'ble High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, in the present case, undisputedly the departmental inquiry was held against the applicant in respect to charges levelled under Charge Memorandum dated 20.04.2011, the applicant herein had participated in the inquiry and had submitted his written statement of defence on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Authority in terms of provisions contained in sub-rule 23 and sub-rule 24 of the Rules 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and had submitted his inquiry report on 30.05.2012. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Inquiry Authority concluded the department inquiry by following the procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
11. Further, it is noticed that on receipt of the inquiry report, by following the procedure laid down in Rule 15 of the Rules ibid, the Disciplinary Authority without recording any 'Disagreement Note' on the inquiry report, the copy of the said Inquiry Report was forwarded to the applicant and after the applicant submitted his representation thereon, the Disciplinary Authority sought UPSC's advice. Undisputedly, on receipt of the UPSC's advised dated 13.06.2014, a copy of the said advice was supplied to the applicant for his submission/ representation thereon. Accordingly, the applicant had submitted his representation. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by considering the representation of the applicant as well as the material on record had passed the speaking order wherein cogent reason have been recorded to accept the recommendation contained in the UPSC's advice and had held that the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::27 :: OA No. 01/2016 charges levelled against the applicant stood proved and accordingly, imposed the major penalty vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure A/5 refer). Therefore, at this stage, it can be seen that the Disciplinary Authority by recording the reasons had passed the penalty order dated 10.09.2014 in terms of the provisions of Rule 15 CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
12. As far as, the grievance of the applicant that the respondents ought to have obtained the second stage of CVC instead of advice from the UPSC is concerned, the same is not acceptable for the reason that in terms of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules ibid and the instructions which were issued by CVC and the UPSC time and again on the subject of consultation in respect to imposition of major penalty upon the Govt. servant working as Group 'A' officer the Disciplinary Authority by adhering to the same as well by following the principles of natural justice to give adequate opportunity to the charge officer to submit his defence at every stage in the disciplinary proceedings has passed the impugned penalty order.
Even otherwise, it is noticed that the applicant herein has been granted ample opportunity at every stage to submit his defence in terms of provisions stipulated in Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules ibid before the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
13. The core submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not been treated equally along with other officers who had in fact approved the purchase of store such as the then TDM, Bundi namely one Shri Sudhir Gupta and other similarly placed officers who were also subjected to Disciplinary Proceeding for identical charges. Learned counsel by relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 1334/2013) decided on 13.02.2013 would also argue that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed, even among persons who are found guilty.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::28 :: OA No. 01/2016
14. At this stage, it is apt to mention that this Tribunal is conscious with the settled principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well settled that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment, unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience as well the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point of limited scope of interference in the matter of punishment which is confined to decision making process as laid down in the case of the State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. N. Gangaraj, reported in 2020 (3) SCC
423.
15. At the same time, to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that while imposing the punishment upon the applicant the applicant has been treated unequally and the same establish discrimination which is not permissible under the law is concerned we have examined the material on record as well the relied upon judgment in this regard.
15.1 It is noticed that in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors.(supra) wherein Departmental Inquiry was held against said Rajendra Yadav the petitioner/appellant for the alleged charge that while he was working as Police Constable along with other Police staff stated to have received an amount of Rs. 3000/- for not implicating certain persons involved in criminal activities as complained by resident of a village Sothia, PS Rahatghar Madhya Pradesh. The Disciplinary Authority held that though the money was demanded by one Constable Arjun Pathak and the same was paid to him but Rajendra Yadav participated in said incident while working as police Constable and he logged the report, therefore, had imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon said Rajendra Yadav. Being aggrieved, the WP filed by him was dismissed by Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court of the Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::29 :: OA No. 01/2016 subsequently the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011.
15.2 Being aggrieved said Rajendra Yadav had filed SLP. No. 2070/2012 before the Hon'ble Apex Court subsequently the said SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1334/2013.
15.3 By considering the issue of claim of parity in respect to the punishment awarded to the co-delinquent raised by the appellant therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal of the appellant therein by setting aside punishment of dismissal from service and directing to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith as like the co-delinquent held in para 11 & 12 as under:-
11. We have gone through the Inquiry Report placed before us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak.
It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the tactic approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry. The charge levelled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained.
12. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.(emphasis supplied) 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::30 :: OA No. 01/2016
16. In the present case, undisputedly for the same incident/transaction of purchase of store items at BSNL, Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, for the period between 2004-2006 the then TDM, said Shri Sudhir Gupta was served with charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the alleged charge to the effect that while he was working as TDM Bundi at the relevant time had approved the purchase of store items on each occasion on quotation basis, the said conduct was in violation of various guidelines and the limit of financial powers and thereby depriving BSNL from getting competitive rates through open tender.
16.1 Further, it is not in dispute that the applicant herein who was working as DE (Planning) at the relevant time and he (i.e. applicant herein) had submitted the proposal to purchase the store items on quotation basis before the Competent Approving Authority i.e. the TDM, Bundi.
As noted herein above, the said TDM, Bundi being Approving Authority had approved the purchase of store items. As discussed herein above, for such approval of purchase of store items the then TDM Bundi, namely Shri Sudhir Gupta was subject to the Disciplinary Proceeding and as such the DA had found him guilty of misconduct for violation of various instructions and rule in vogue at the relevant time as alleged in the charge memorandum, accordingly, the DA had also imposed identical major penalty as like the applicant herein.
16.2 However, while considering the Review Application of the said Shri Sudhir Gupta the then TDM Bundi, the Competent Reviewing Authority had sought UPSC advice. In response to it, the UPSC rendered it's advice vide letter dated 03.02.2017 and based on the said UPSC advice the major penalty imposed upon said Shri Sudhir Gupta had been reduced to minor penalty of "Censure". Since, the applicant herein claim the equal treatment we deem it appropriate to refer and reproduce the relevant observation as made by the UPSC in it's advice 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::31 :: OA No. 01/2016 dated 03.02.2017 in the case of Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM, Bundi, which reads as under:-
"4. The case record have been examined carefully and observation of the Commission are as follows :
4.1 The Commission note that the CO/Petitioner has preferred his review petition dated 04.03.2016 against the penalty order dated 23.09.2015 under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stating that new facts have come to his knowledge after issue of the said penalty order.
The CO/Petitioner has argued to consider his case in the light of the advice of the Commission given in similar case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal vide letter No. F.3/236/2013-S.1 dated 13.10.2014 on the ground that the facts & circumstances are similar in his case and that in respect of element of Charge (viii) in the case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal wherein he has been given the benefit of doubt and absolved of the charges. The CO/Petitioner has stated that the UPSC, after analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of element of Charge (viii) in the case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal, has inferred that there was confusion which was existing in regard to the registration process as also authorization in respect thereof. Therefore, UPSC has given the CO (Sh. Sanjeev Singhal) the benefit of doubt and absolved him in respect of the said element of charge. The CO/Petitioner has argued that the similar nature of the facts and circumstances of his case with that of Shri Sanjeev Singhal is evident from the fact that the UPSC in the case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal has made the observations that 'the CO was not looking after office of SSA Tonk at this time and therefore, the possibility of his not being advised about this instruction (about issuing Form-C against all POs after 01.08.2002, conveyed vide 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::32 :: OA No. 01/2016 CGMT, Jaipur letter dated 08.04.2003) after he took over the charge in the beginning of 2004 cannot be ruled out.' The CO/Petitioner has stated that he had also joined as TDM Bundi on 09.01.2004 whereas, all the letters, mentioned in the Article of Charge-III against him, were issued by the office of CGMT, Jaipur in year 2003 and after his joining at Bundi in 2004, he was never advised by Planning Section and/or by Finance Cell, while processing the purchase cases or otherwise, about the existence of any such instructions issued by CGMT, Jaipur vide letters dated 28.03.2003, 08.04.2003, 28.04.2003 and 14.10.2003. The CO/Petitioner has stated that the letter dated 14.12.2004 of CGMT, Jaipur, which was issued after his joining at Bundi, was ambiguous and lacked clarity. It neither talked about availing concessional Sales Tax nor did it have reference of any previous letter Issued by CGMT, Jaipur in 2003. The same has also been observed by the UPSC in case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal that 'the letter of 14.12.04 only states that revised Sales Tax Returns upto year 2002-03 are required to be submitted and that Form-C against the supplies received in respect of Pos issued will be issued by the AO CTSD, office of CGMT, Jaipur. The letter is quite ambiguous and it does not clearly state that authority for issuing of Form-C has been delegated to SSA Heads.' 4.2 The Commission note that the CO/Petitioner has stated that the UPSC in its advice in case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal, has also accepted the very fact about the letter dated 30.08.2005 that 'From the letters of 30.8.2005 and 30.06.2006 it becomes evident that the permission to allow telecom service providers to issue Form-C to avail concessional Sales Tax facilities was included only in the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::33 :: OA No. 01/2016 Financial Budget of 2002-03, and only thereafter the process of registration with the Sales Tax authorities could have been started...... These letters clearly indicate that BSNL had been authorised for availing Form-C benefits only recently and there appears to have been considerable confusion in getting the registration done.
4.3 The Commission note that the CO/Petitioner has argued that all the 4 POS Issued by Bundi SSA with Sales Tax @8.15% to 10% were issued prior to 30.08.2005 and thereafter, Concessional Sales Tax benefits were availed in all the POs issued by Bundi SSA after 30.08.2005. As such, there was no negligence on his part in availing concessional sales tax benefits. The CO/Petitioner has argued that in the case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal, the UPSC has also accepted that the responsibility in this regards (i.e. applicability of taxes), to a large extent, also rests with the Financial Adviser of the unit.
4.4 The Commission observe that the Charge in Article-III against the CO/Petitioner (Shri Sudhir Gupta) and that the element of Charge in para (viii) of Statement of Imputation of Misconduct against Shri Sanjeev Singhal appears to be similar that is 'the RST/CST was paid @ 8.15 to 10% instead of concessional rate (4%) thus failed to avail benefit of concessional sales tax facility resulting in payment of excess amount.
The period of the misconduct is also the same i.e. 2004- 2006. The Rules alleged to be violated by both Shri Sanjeev Singhal and the CO/Petitioner (Shri Sudhir Gupta) are the same. They were also posted in the same Rajashthan Telecom Circle but at different place that is the CO/Petitioner was functioning as TDM, Bundi whereas Shri Sanjeev Singhal was functioning as TDM, Tonk. The 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::34 :: OA No. 01/2016 CO/Petitioner also took over the charge of the post of TDM, Bundi in the beginning of 2004 on 09.01.2004 as in the case of Shri Sanjeev Singhal who took over the charge of the post as TDM, Tonk in the beginning of 2004. The CO/Petitioner has also argued that all the 4 POs issued by Bundi SSA with Sales Tax @8.15% to 10% were issued prior to 30.08.2005 and thereafter, Concessional Sales Tax benefits were availed in all the POs issued by Bundi SSA after 30.08.2005. Therefore, the CO/Petitioner (Shri Sudhir Gupta) in his review petition dated 04.03.2016 has brought out new material/ facts relevant to the case which could not be produced earlier and as such his review petition deserves consideration.
5. In the light of their observation and findings as discussed above, and after taking into accout all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commissioner considered that the penalty of "Reduction of lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with the direction that he will not earn increment of pay during this period of such reduction and after expiry of this period, reduction will not have the effect of postponement of future increments" earlier imposed on Shri Sudhir Gupta, the petitioner vide order dated 23.09.2015 should be modified to that of 'Censure'. The Review Petition dated 04.03.2016 preferred by Shri Sudhir Gupta, the petition should be accepted to that extent. They advised accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) 16.3 Undisputedly, on receipt of the aforesaid UPSC advice, by accepting the same, the Reviewing Authority modified, the said major penalty imposed upon said Sudhir Gupta, the then TDM Bundi, and reduced it to the minor penalty of "Censure" and accordingly had accepted the Review Application of said Sudhir Gupta to that extent.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::35 :: OA No. 01/2016 16.4 Further, it is noticed that in the case of other TDM working at different places/station of BSNL in Rajasthan who purchased the store items on quotation basis from the approved agency of the BSNL and had not adopted the tender procedure were also awarded lesser punishment and in some cases only a caution notice was issued to them.
16.5 It is apt to mention that the said officers as referred herein above, namely TDM Bundi, & others were also been initially found guilty by the DA who were equally alleged to have violated various instructions of BSNL while approving the purchase of store items on quotation basis. However, as noted herein above, the said officer has been given lesser punishment by the Competent Reviewing Authority whereas in the case of the applicant, he has been awarded higher punishment and thereby he has not been treated equally.
16.6 The aforesaid factual matrix of modification/reduction of the penalty order into a minor penalty in the case of said TDM Bundi, Shri Sudhir Gupta and imposition of lesser punishment in case of other similarly placed charged officers has not been refuted by the respondents herein not any other contrary material to that has been placed on record.
17. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position in respect to imposition of lesser punishment to the officer who has higher responsibility than the applicant herein that too, for the same incident, therefore, we find substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he has not been treated equally along with other similarly placed officers and even the officers who are higher in rank has been awarded lesser punishment than the applicant herein.
Thus, in our considered opinion, the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed even among persons who are found guilty as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid referred judgment passed in Rajendra Yadav (Supra) including in the case on hand.
2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::36 :: OA No. 01/2016 In other words, we find that the punishment awarded to the applicant herein is disproportionate to the punishment awarded to the similarly situated other officers and as such he has not been treated equally. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the applicant in respect to the quantum of punishment imposed upon the applicant as the same punishment which is as such disproportionate as noted herein above.
17.1 It is suffice to state that the Disciplinary Authority as also the Reviewing Authority in the present case had imposed a comparatively lighter punishment to the other delinquent who are as such higher in rank and the Competent Authority to approve the purchase of store items but at the same time, harsher punishment was imposed upon the applicant herein who had only submitted his proposal for approval, the said approach for imposition of penalty in Departmental Inquiry more particularly in case of the applicant herein cannot be permitted as per law, since they were all involved in the same incident. The said impugned punishment order in our considered view found to be shocking to this Tribunal's conscience in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajendra Yadav. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the applicant herein.
18. Consequently, we partly allow the present OA by setting aside the impugned punishment order dated 10th September 2014 (Annexure A/4) as well order dated 28th September 2015 (Annexure A/5) passed by the Reviewing Authority and remit the matter to the Competent Authority for consideration and passing of appropriate order by treating the applicant equal for the purpose of imposition of punishment as the same has been done in case of the then TDM Bundi, Rajasthan Telecom Circle namely Shri Sudhir Gupta as referred herein above.
It is expected that the Competent Authority shall complete the exercise as directed herein above not later than 90 days from the 2025.07.09 KHAMBHATI NILESH 10:49:56 KANTILAL +05'30' ::37 :: OA No. 01/2016 receipt of the certified copy of this order and any decision thereon be intimated to the applicant forthwith. No order as to costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member(J)
/nk/pv/
2025.07.09
KHAMBHATI NILESH
10:49:56
KANTILAL
+05'30'