Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
B Madegowda vs Bsnl on 12 March, 2025
1 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00220/2024
ORDER RESERVED : 07.03.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 12.03.2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
Shri B.Madegowda,
S/o Late Basavegowda,
Aged about 57 years,
Telecom Technician (Retd)., (VRS 2019),
No.5033/34A, 1st Main Road,
Subhash Nagar, 17th Ward,
K.R.Nagara, Mysuru-571602. ....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri Chandan S.Malapur)
Vs.
1. The Chairman and Managing Director,
BSNL & Disciplinary Authority,
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi -110001.
2. The AGM (Admin & Disciplinary Authority),
O/o. GMT, Mysuru-BA,
Mysuru-570012.
3. The Assistant General Manager (Admin),
O/o General Manager Telecom,
Mysuru-570012.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
2 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. The Principal General Manager,
Jayalakshmipuram,
O/o GMT, Mysuru-BA,
Mysuru-570012. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N.Amaresh for Respondents-1 to 4)
ORDER
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Call for the records relating to the issue of the impugned order bearing No. Communique dated No.BSNLCO-A/15(16)/11/2021-ESTAB dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure A8) passed by the Respondent No.1, peruse the same and set aside/quash the same as the case may be;
b. Direct the respondents to release the retiral/pensionary benefits to the applicant;
c. Any other Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of this S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 3 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH application may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant in the ends of justice and equity."
2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he joined the Department of Telecommunications on 23.08.1995 and retired from service on 31.01.2020 under the BSNL voluntary retirement scheme. The applicant was issued with a show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 to initiate action against him under Rule 40 and 33 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 ('Rules' for short) owing to the conviction order passed by the jurisdictional Court on 12.02.2020 against the applicant. The applicant responded to the same vide his reply dated 29.03.2021. Final order dated 06.05.2021 was passed under the provisions of Rule- 40(a) of the Rules, imposing the minor penalty of 'Censure' pursuant to which the applicant submitted a representation requesting the General Manager to release the retiral benefits on 07.05.2021. That being the position, the General Manager Telecom, Mysuru-BA (Business Area) vide office communication dated 11/12.10.2021 issued the charge memorandum invoking the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 4 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH proviso to Rule 40 of the Rules, to which the applicant submitted his reply on 15.11.2021. However, the penalty order dated 26.02.2024 has been issued under proviso to Rule-61 of the Rules, imposing a penalty of 50% pension cut permanently. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri Chandan S. Malapur appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is bald and vague. No reasons much less valid reasons are assigned by the Respondent No.1 in imposing the harsh penalty of 50% pension cut permanently to the applicant. Learned Counsel submitted that the person once tried and cleared cannot be put on trial in the absence of vitiating circumstances. The applicant having been subjected to the proceedings under the provision of the Rule-40 of the Rules culminating in the order of 'Censure', on the very same charges, issue of second charge sheet is wholly impermissible. No penalty proceedings ought to have been initiated subsequent to the retirement of the applicant. Censure order dated 24.06.2022 has been cancelled/withdrawn by the same authority, who issued the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 5 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH said order, such an exercise is arbitrary and against the principles of law. Learned Counsel further submitted that an appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.350/2020 and the applicant has been enlarged on bail pending the said appeal proceedings. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following citations:
1) P Maruthamuthu vs. General Manger, Ordnance Factory, Tiruchirapally - 1987 (1) SLR CAT MAD 15.
2) Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another - (2015) 16 SCC 415.
3) State Bank of India vs. Navin Kumar Sinha - 2024 SCC Online SC 3369.
4. Learned Counsel Shri N.Amaresh representing the respondents, justifying the impugned order argued that vigilance clearance of the applicant was withheld on 27.01.2020. The applicant has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 436, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in case No.S.C.No.143/2012 vide order 12.02.2020 issued by the Hon'ble VIII Addl. District and Session Court S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 6 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH at Mysuru sitting at Hunsuru, wherein the applicant has been sentenced to a total punishment of four years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.6000/-. Based on the same an explanation was called by AGM (HR/Admn), Mysore from the applicant vide letter dated 18.07.2019 and the applicant submitted his explanation dated 09.08.2019. On the date of relieving and retirement under BSNL VRS, 2019, no conviction orders were passed against the applicant. Pursuant to the conviction order passed by the Jurisdictional Court, the applicant was issued with a show cause notice dated 22.03.2021, to which the applicant had submitted his reply on 29.03.2021. Considering the same, the AGM, Admn. & Disciplinary Authority) issued the final order dated 06.05.2021 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 40(a) of the Rules, ordering penalty of 'Censure' , warning the applicant not to involve or support in any criminal activities and to maintain good conduct in future by abiding the law of the land. Subsequently, General Manager, Mysuru issued Memorandum (Charge sheet) dated 12.10.2021 and provided an opportunity to the applicant for making representation on the conviction and sentences, to which the applicant submitted the representation requesting to release his S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 7 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pensionary/retiral benefits. Since CMD, BSNL being the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 61 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, AGM (Admn), Mysuru informed the applicant regarding withdrawal of the memo issued under Rule 40 of the Rules through letter dated 20.03.2021 and final order was issued vide letter dated 06.05.2021 after obtaining the approval of the competent authority/CMD, BSNL for initiation of disciplinary proceedings taking into account the gravity of criminal charges. Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL and Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of the records of the case ordered to impose a penalty of 50% pension cut permanently against the applicant. Chairman/Managing Directing being the competent authority to issue sanction to institute the disciplinary proceedings against the retired employees, penalty of 50% pension cut permanently was ordered against the applicant vide order dated 26.02.2024. DoT employees on absorption in BSNL, shall be governed by the BSNL CDA Rules from the date of their absorption in the BSNL/date of issue of the said Rules. Thus supporting the impugned penalty order, learned Counsel seeks for the dismissal of the OA.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
8 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The undisputed facts are that the applicant retired from service on 31.01.2020 under BSNL VRS, 2019 Scheme from Mysuru BA, Karnataka Circle and he was relieved from BSNL services on the same day i.e., on 31.01.2020. The personal/private case of the charged official/applicant relates to the year, 2009. The gist of the said private case narrated in the reply statement reads as under:
"On 15.12.2009 in the afternoon, son of Sri B Madegowda, Darshan, aged about 12 years and Son of One Mr.Krishnegowda, Manju aged about 12 years, both have entered the watermelon garden of the complainant, when complainant son Ravi aged 22 years was himself engaged in agricultural operational work. The said two children have plucked watermelon fruits from the complainant garden, seeing this the complainant's son Ravi has scolded the children and sent them back. On 05.12.2009 in the evening, father of Manju, Sri Krishnegowda has heated arguments with the complainant Sri Kempegowda and his son Sri Ravi, for scolding his son in the afternoon. Due to the intervention of the villagers, Krishnegowda left the place after heated arguments. On S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 9 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 05.12.2009 at 12 'o'clock in the night, the complainant and his family overhears the sound that someone has set fire to the cattle shed in which Motorbikes, agriculture components and haystacks were stored. Based on the statement of one eyewitness Mr.Kumara, the complainant lodged complaint in Bilikere Police Station on 06.12.2009 with FIR No.0314 Dated 06.12.2009 against Sri B.Madegowda (Accused No.3), Sri Krishnegowda S/o Late Kalegowda (Accused No.1) and Sri Krishnegowda S/o Late Basave Gowda (Accused No.2).
Bilikere police authorities conducted investigation based on the FIR No.0314 Dated 06.12.2009 and charge sheet was filed only against two accused No.1 and 2, Sri Madegowda was not charge sheeted due to non availability of proof of evidence, and submitted to the Honorable trial court at Hunsuru.
Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offences and passed order of registration of criminal case against accused No.1 and 2 in Case No.CC No.149/2010. Since the offences were triable only by the court of sessions, the case against accused No.1 and 2 registered as SC No.143/2012. When the registered case SC No.143/2012 was under process, the complainant Sri Krishnegowda files application U/S 319 of Cr.PC for addition of Sri B Madegowda as accused No.3. The learned magistrate dismissed the above application on devoid of merits.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
10 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Aggrieved by the dismissal of application U/S 319 of Cr.PC by session court, Sri Krishnegowda preferred appeal before the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was allowed with case No. CP No.6311/2012.
The Honourable High Court in its proceedings in CP No.6311/2012 observed that, the eye witness Sri Kumara's presence and his statement "That Sri B Madegowda is one among the three accused in the offence committed" is not challenged by the defense advocates in their cross examination, hence the presence of witness and his statement cannot be neglected. With the above observation the Honorable High Court of Karnataka in its Judgment order in CP 6311/2012 dated
07.01.2019 instructed trial court to include Sri B Madegowda as the 3rd accused and shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the law. The Honorable High Court also made it clear that observation made in its order shall not influence the proceedings of the trial court.
In view of the order passed by Honorable High Court of Karnataka in CP 6311/2012, to include Sri B.Madedowda as co- accused, Sri Madegowda obtained bail through Crl. Appeal No.350/2020 on 27.02.2020 from Honorable High Court of Karnataka.
The trial court heard the charges on Sri B.Madegowda, which he denied. The complainant produced further evidence in view S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 11 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of framing charges against accused No.3 Sri B.Madegowda. Thereafter, the court examined Sri B Madegowda and recorded Sri B.Madegowda's statement by giving an opportunity for explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of complainant. Sri B.Madegowda denied all the evidences produced by complainant side, but fails to provide defence evidence for them.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the honorable trial court came to the conclusion that, all the three accused including Sri B Madegowda failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
a) On 05.12.2009 at mid night, 12 'O'Clock has not trespassed the complainant property to commit offences.
b) On 05.12.2009 at mid night, 12 'O' Clock has not involved in putting fire into the complainants Cattle shed in which Motor cycle, Moped, agricultural components and bicycle were kept.
Based on the above, the applicant has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 436, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in case No. SC No.143/2012 through Judgment/order dated 12.02.2020 by Hon'ble VIII Additional District and Session Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsuru sentenced a total punishment of imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only)."
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
12 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. Based on the aforesaid conviction order, AGM (Admin & Disciplinary Authority), Mysuru issued the penalty order of 'Censure' dated 06.05.2021, after issuing the show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 and considering the reply dated 29.03.2021. The said order was withdrawn vide letter dated 24.06.2022 by the very same authority but before withdrawing the said order i.e., during the subsistence of the said penalty Memorandum (Show cause notice) dated 22.03.2021, Memorandum (Chargesheet) was issued by the GMT, Mysuru BA dated 11/12-10-2021 which reads thus:
"Whereas Shri B Madegowda, HR No.199501435, Telecom Technician (Retd. On 31.01.2020 under VRS 2019), has been convicted on a criminal charge under section 436, 427 and 448 of the India Penal Code (IPC) in case No.S.C.NO.143/2012 through Judgment/order dated 12.02.2020 by Honorable VIII Addl. District and Session Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsuru and has been awarded a sentence of:
1) Simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.5000/- U/s 436 of IPC.
2) Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- U/s 427 of IPC.
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 13 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3) Simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs.500/- U/s 448 of IPC.
Above sentences shall run concurrently, hence total punishment sentenced to Shri Madegowda B is simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.6000/-. By this Act. ShB.Madegowda has committed Misconduct as defined in Rule 5(17) and violated Rule 4(1)(c) & (e) of BSNL CDA Rules. AND WHERE AS the CMD, BSNL being the competent Disciplinary Authority under Rules 61(4)(2)(b) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 has granted approval for initiation of Disciplinary proceedings and proposes to award an appropriate penalty under Rule 40 of BSNL CDA Rules-2006, taking into account the gravity of criminal charges. Further, CMD, BSNL has also authorized the under signed to sign this memorandum. AND WHEREAS before coming to a decision about the quantum of penalty, ShriB Madegowda will be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances, why penal action should not be taken against him in pursuance of the provision of Rule 40 of BSNL CDA, Rules-2006.
NOW, THEREFORE Shri B.Madegowda is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the above conviction and sentences. Any representation he may wish to make against such conviction and sentences will be considered by CMD, BSNL S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 14 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to decide about the penalty under BSNL CDA Rules. Such representation if any should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than the fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum/show-cause notice by Shri B.Madegowda.
The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged."
8. On reading of the aforesaid memorandum, it is evident that the issuance of earlier show cause dated 22.03.2021 and the order of penalty of 'Censure' imposed on 06.05.2021 has not been referred to. In other words, the said charge sheet is silent about the previous action initiated and the order passed against the applicant. The earlier show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Memorandum (Show cause notice) [Rule 40 of BSNL CDA Rules-2006] WHEREAS Shri Madegowda B., HR No.199501435 Telecom Technician (Retd. VRS-2019), has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 436, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)in case No.S.C.No.143/2012 through Judgment/order dated S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 15 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 12-20-2020 by Honorable VIII Addl. District and Session Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsuru and has been awarded a sentence of:
1) Simple impriosonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.5000/- U/s 436 of IPC.
2) Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- U/s 427 Of IPC.
3) Simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs.500/- U/s 448 of IPC.
Above sentences shall run concurrently, hence total punishment sentenced to Shri Madegowda B is simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.6000/-.
AND WHEREAS the undersigned proposes to award an appropriate penalty under Rule 33 of BSNL CDA Rules-2006 taking into account the gravity of criminal charges.
AND WHEREAS before coming to a decision about the quantum of penalty. Shri Madegowda B will be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances, why penal action should not be taken against him in pursuance of the provision of Rule 40 and 33 of BSNL CDA Rules-2006.
NOW THEREFORE Shri Madegowda B is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the above conviction and sentences. Any representation he may wish to make against S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 16 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH such conviction and sentences will be considered by the undersigned to decide gravity of the criminal charges. Such representation if any should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not latter than the fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum/show cause notice by Shri B.Madegowda.
The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged."
9. On careful scrutiny of both the charge memorandums, it is ex- facie apparent that they are same. Nothing new is available in the subsequent memorandum of charge to indicate that it relates to an incident not covered by the earlier charge sheet.
10. It is trite that an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings have been instituted on a particular charge, as a result of which the punishment has also been awarded, cannot subsequently be charge sheeted for the same offence for imposing a higher punishment (vide P.Maruthamuthu supra). Respondent No.2 withdrawing the earlier show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 and the penalty order dated 06.05.2021 without assigning any cogent reasons, merely stating administrative reasons sans reserving S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 17 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH any liberty to proceed against the applicant on the very same charges, cannot be appreciated. Even assuming the show cause notice dated 22.03.2021 and the final order of 'Censure' dated 06.05.2021 were issued by the authority having no jurisdiction, the same ought to have been set right by initiating appropriate proceedings by the higher authority in accordance with law as the authority who passed the order becomes functus-officio and no suo-moto withdrawal could be made, more particularly, without issuing any notice and assigning reasons for the same. Such an action of Respondent No.2 is an infraction of fundamental fairness and due process in legal and administrative proceedings being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. During the subsistence of the penalty order of 'Censure' issuing another charge memo against the applicant on the very same charges, is wholly untenable. Detailed explanation was submitted by the applicant requesting to release his pensionary/retiral benefits (as there is no pecuniary loss caused to the BSNL and no amount to be recovered from him). But none of the grounds urged by the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 18 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH applicant were considered and adjudicated by the Respondent No.1 while imposing the major penalty of 50% pension cut permanently against the applicant vide order dated 26.02.2024. It is well settled that reasons are the live link between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. This view has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Courts in catena of judgments.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the legal principles in the case of M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 as under:
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 19 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
20 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
13. In the light of the aforesaid judgement, it is crystal clear that any order passed without reasons is void-ab-initio and cannot be countenanced.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'
21 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. In the absence of any reasons assigned for imposing major penalty in place of minor penalty already imposed, it can be inferred that it is only a change of opinion and the same is not justifiable unless the reasons in writing have been recorded and made available to the affected person. Disciplinary Authority is exercising the quasi-judicial functions while concluding the disciplinary proceedings and passing an order. The confidence reposed by the employees over such orders would be totally tarnished if the authorities keep on changing their version like chameleon changing its colour. Consistency is the hallmark of judicial/quasi judicial functionaries, notwithstanding such principles if a more stringent action is necessitated, ordinarily there must be some subsequent developments but no such new charges are levelled against the charged official. No such material is placed on record or is forthcoming from the impugned order. Indisputedly, the charges remain the same as narrated above.
15. It is significant to note that though the second charge memorandum was issued on 11/12.10.2021 to which the applicant S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 22 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH submitted his representation on 15.11.2021, the impugned order is passed on 26.02.2024. What could be inferred from such prolonged decision making process is that the respondents were not clear and had no sincere mind/endeavour to conclude the proceedings once initiated against the applicant within a reasonable time. Procrastinating the matter for no reasons is nothing but harassing the delinquent employee. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Nath Bali supra, wherein it is observed thus:
"28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year."
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 23 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Thus, the delay caused in issuing the penalty order also adds for making the order still bad in law.
16. Quantum of penalty of 50% pension cut permanently is too harsh in the circumstances of the case and shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Minor penalty order of 'Censure' has been changed to major penalty of 50% pension cut permanently without any basis. It is classic case of arbitrary exercise of power. It is settled that while imposing quantum of punishment the employer must consider the nature of the offence and its impact on the employees' conduct on the employer regarding any pecuniary loss caused and any amount to be recoverable from the convicted employee. No such adjudication has been made in the impugned order.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned penalty order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure A8) issued by Respondent No.1, is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter in the light of the aforesaid observations and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law by passing a S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.03.14 10:39:44-12'00' 24 OA 220/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH reasoned and speaking order. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
18. OA stands disposed of, in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
sd/-
(JUSTICE S.SUJATHA) MEMBER(J) sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.03.14
10:39:44-12'00'