Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V K Devarajan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 9 January, 2026
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Review Application No. 180/00001/2022 and Contempt Petition No. 180/00014/2021 in Original Application No. 180/00186/2020 & Original Application No. 180/00183/2024 Friday, this the 9th day of January, 2026 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J) Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Review Application No. 180/00001/2022 in Original Application No. 180/00186/2020 -
1. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, represented by Its Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL Bhavan, Corporate office, Statesman House, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvanandapuram - 695 033.
3. The General Manager (Finance), Office of CGMT, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvanandapuram-695 033.
4. The General Manager, BSNL, Pathanamthitta Telecom District, Thiruvalla - 689 101.
5. The Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Thiruvalla, 689 101. ..... Review Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. V. Santharam) 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 2 Versus
1. V.K. Devarajan, Retired Office Superintendent, HR No. 198301509, Public Relations Section, Office of the General Manager, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 102, residing at Varikolil House, Venpala PO, Thiruvalla - 689 102.
2. P&T BSNL Employees Cooperative Society, No. 1940, represented by its Secretary, Gandhariammam Coil road, Mele Thampanoor Junction, Santhi Nagar, Pulimude, Thiruvanandapuram-695 001.
3. The Thiruvalla Government Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. A-213, represented by its Secretary, Police Station Road, Thiruvalla - 689 101.
4. Union Bank of India, represented by its Manager, Thiruvalla Branch, Marthoma Building, Thiruvalla - 689 101. ..... Respondents [(By Advocates: Mr. S.M. Prasanth (R1) & Mr. S. Jayakrishnan (R3)]
2. Contempt Petition No. 180/00014/2021 in Original Application No. 180/00186/2020 - V.K. Devarajan, Son of Pappan Kesavan, aged 58 years, Retired Office Superintendent, Public Relations Section, Office of the General Manager, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101, residing at Varikolil House, Venpala PO, Thiruvalla - 689 102. ..... Petitioner (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Prasanth) Versus
1. Mr. C.V. Vinod, Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 3
2. Ms. Rathi Rani, Circle IFA, (holding the charge of General Manager (Finance), Office of the Chief General Manager (Telecom), BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Mr. Saju George K., General Manager, BSNL, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101.
4. Mr. Sudheer P.S., Chief Accounts Officer, (Holding the charge of DGM (Finance), Office of the General Manager, BSNL, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101. ..... Respondents [(By Advocate: Mr. V. Santharam (R1-4)]
3. Original Application No. 180/00183/2024 - V.K. Devarajan, Son of Pappan Kesavan, aged 62 years, HR No. 198301509, Retired Office Superintendent, Public Relations Section, Office of the General Manager, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101, residing at Varikolil House, Venpala PO, Thiruvallatha - 689 102. ..... Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Prasanth) Versus
1. The Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, represented by Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
2. The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The General Manager (HR), Office of the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 4
4. The Circle IFA, (holding the charge of General Manager (Finance), Office of the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
5. The Principal General Manager, BSNL, Pathanamthitta, Thiruvalla BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101.
6. The Chief Accounts Officer, (Holding the charge of DGM (Finance), Office of the General Manager, BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla - 689 101. ..... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. V. Santharam) These Review Application, Contempt Petition and Original Application having been heard on 25.08.2025, the Tribunal on 09.01.2026 delivered the following:
Common O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member - Review Application No. 180/00001/2022 and Contempt Petition No. 180/00014/2021 in Original Application No. 180/00186/2020 -
The applicant retired from BSNL under the VRS Scheme 2019, with effect from 31.1.2020. During his service, he had availed huge loans from KSFE, Union Bank and Cooperative Banks, to the tune of Rs. 27 lakhs. Consequent to his voluntary retirement, BSNL initiated steps to effect recovery towards the loan repayment from his pensionary benefits. OA 186/2020 was filed to resist the recovery of amount from the pensionary 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 5 benefits. The applicant contended that the loan recovery extends to 31.3.2022, his actual date of superannuation. Hence, it was contended that it was prematurely sought to be recovered. The creditors were arrayed as respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
2. The contention of the BSNL was that unless the applicant comes to an agreement with the creditors and absolve of BSNL from its future liabilities, BSNL was under an obligation to recover the dues for the creditors from the pensionary benefits and hence, the amount due as pensionary benefits cannot be released to the applicant.
3. By an order dated 19.2.2021 of the Tribunal, OA was dismissed as not pressed, recording certain submissions. It was recorded that when the matter came up before it, the counsel for the applicant submitted that he had no objection in releasing the amount kept by the official respondents to his creditors and he will not press for the reliefs sought by him in the OA. It was also recorded that the official respondents and the 7th respondent did not raise any objection to this submission. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to release the amount kept pending at their disposal to the creditors, who had approached the 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 6 respondents for payment, if there was no civil dispute pending regarding apportionment.
4. It seems that in the meanwhile, certain issues were raised regarding the caste status of the applicant. The applicant had entered into the service of the BSNL claiming himself to be a scheduled tribe 'Mala Arayan' and produced a caste certificate. On the basis of it, the GM of BSNL required the scrutiny committee for verification of community certificate to enquire into the real caste status of the applicant.
5. The scrutiny committee directed the KIRTADS to conduct an anthropological study and inquiry into the real caste status of the applicant. After conducting an inquiry, the vigilance officer of KIRTADS submitted an inquiry report dated 5.11.2020. Pursuant to it, the scrutiny committee after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, by its proceedings dated 3.3.2021 passed an order, rejecting the claim of the applicant that he belonged to 'Mala Arayan' a Scheduled Tribe and held that he in fact belonged to Araya community, an OBC.
6. Consequently, the Government issued an order dated 31.3.2021 by which it accepted the recommendation of the scrutiny committee and 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 7 rejected the claim of the applicant that he belonged to ST 'Mala Arayan' community. It declared that the applicant and family members did not belong to Scheduled Tribe 'Mala Arayan' community, but belonged to Araya (OBC) community. It was also declared that he was not entitled for any benefits meant for ST and all such benefits to him should be stopped.
Consequent to the finding of the scrutiny committee, by communication of the DGM (HR) of BSNL dated 22.3.2021 it was ordered that all the terminal benefits due to the applicant shall be withheld.
7. Challenging the proceedings of the scrutiny committee dated 3.3.2021 and the consequential order of the Government, the applicant filed WP© No. 9857 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court. It was contended that the orders were issued without any legal or factual basis. It was further contended that the order will not affect his terminal benefits due from the BSNL. BSNL contended that they had no intention to stop the terminal benefits and it was ready to abide by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 186 of 2020. In the meanwhile, alleging non-compliance of the order in OA/186/2020 within the stipulated time, CP© No. 14 of 2021 was filed on 4.8.2021 by the applicant. Review Application No. 1 of 2022 was filed by the respondent 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 8 Nos. 1 to 5 BSNL, seeking a review of the order in OA/186/2020 dated 19.2.2021 essentially on the basis of subsequent events. The respondents therein are the applicant and respondent Nos. 6 to 8. According to the review applicants, the total amount due to the original applicant was Rs. 23,34,489/-. The total amount payable to the financial institutions, was Rs. 22,04,036/-. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Review Application and the Contempt Petition filed by the applicant were kept pending. In the OA, BSNL had filed a statement contending that the total amount payable on VRS was Rs. 23,34,489/-.
8. According to the review applicants, while they were taking further steps to implement the order, dispute arose regarding the community certificate of 'Mala Arayan' obtained by the 1st respondent. The review applicants received an order dated 3.3.2021 from the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates, by which the scrutiny committee had rejected the claim of the 1st respondent for scheduled tribe ('Mala Arayan') status and cancelled all community certificates issued to the effect that he belonged to Mala Araya Tribe which was included in the ST list, by Annexure RA2 order. The 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 9 Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe Development Department of Government of Kerala accepted Annexure RA2 and by order dated 31.3.2021 produced as Annexure RA3 cancelled the Scheduled Tribe 'Mala Arayan' caste certificate of the 1st respondent and inter alia clarified that if the 1st respondent or any of his family members got appointment/admission on consideration as members of the Scheduled Tribe community they should be terminated from service and that should be cancelled and another eligible member of the Scheduled Tribe community shall be appointed/admitted against the resultant vacancy.
9. It was contended that the original applicant's appointment to the post was void ab initio and non est in the eye of law. Right to salary and pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. In tune with Annexures RA2 and RA3, the office of BSNL issued Annexure RA4 communication dated 22.3.2021 directing the General Manager, Pathanamthitta to withhold the terminal benefits and ex gratia amount due to the original applicant.
10. Subsequently, the first respondent produced Annexure RA5 a copy 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 10 of the interim stay dated 23.4.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP© No. 9857 of 2021 challenging Annexure RA2 order dated 3.3.2021 of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. In view of the subsequent developments the review applicants claimed that they were not in a position to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
11. It was contended that the right to salary and pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate.
12. By judgment dated 15.6.2023 in WP© No. 9857 of 2021 it was held as under:
"In the aforesaid circumstances, I close this writ petition, without acceding to the challenge against Exts. P6 and P7; however, clarifying that all contentions of the petitioner with respect to the employment and retiral benefits are left open, if it becomes necessary in future to be impelled by him."
13. Appropriate authority by Annexure RA6 order had requested the 2nd review applicant to institute disciplinary proceedings under Rule 61 of the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006 against the original applicant. Since he had 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 11 to undergo disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Rules, the memorandum dated 16.12.2023 produced as Annexure RA7 was issued by the competent authority to the original applicant. He submitted Annexure RA8 reply. Inquiry proceedings commenced. Simultaneously, prosecution proceedings was also launched against the applicant by laying complaint for obtaining Government job on false certificate.
14. In the above circumstances, the review applicants sought to review the order in OA No. 186 of 2020 dated 19.2.2021. OA No. 183/2024 -
15. The applicant herein is the applicant in OA No. 186 of 2020. WP© No. 9857 of 2021, referred above, was ultimately disposed of without granting the prayer of the applicant to quash the Government order dated 31.03.2021, but it was directed that BSNL shall decide on the question of what consequence will fall upon the applicant pursuant to Annexure A5 GO. Though no specific direction was passed, it was undertaken by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court to abide by the order in OA No. 186 of 2020.
16. Thereafter, Annexure A8, memorandum of charges dated 16.12.2023 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 12 was served on the applicant herein, informing that it was proposed to hold an inquiry under Rule 36 of BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the first charge under Article I it was stated that the applicant did not communicate to the controlling officer that he belonged to 'Araya' community and did not disclose the ongoing inquiry initiated by the scrutiny committee. It was stated that he suppressed the material facts thereby violated Rule 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(f), 5(1), 5(4) and 5(20) of BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006. In Article II charge, it was alleged that the applicant had appeared before the scrutiny committee and contended that he was a 'Mala Arayan' community under the ST category. The pendency of proceedings was not informed to the respondents nor he had sought permission from the BSNL, to attend the hearing. While said proceedings for cancellation of the caste certificate was pending, he had opted for VRS, 2019, suppressing the above, which provided for additional benefits to the eligible employees and thereby he failed to maintain integrity and committed an act which was unbecoming of a public service. He thereby violated Rule 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(f), 5(4) and 5(26) of BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006. In the third charge it was alleged that in Writ Petition No. 9857 of 2021 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 13 the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the finding of Competent Authority that the applicant belonged to OBC category and not in ST category and thus the applicant being well aware that of the caste certificate produced at the time of his initial appointment was a fake one and had obtained employment only on the production of fake/false certificate. He had made deliberate and wilful misrepresentation before the BSNL authorities for releasing the terminal benefits including the ex-gratia granted to eligible VRS optees of BSNL and thus violated Rule 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), 5(1), 5(20), 5(26) and 5(31) of BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006.
17. He submitted Annexure A9 explanation in answer to the memorandum of charges. By Annexure A11, a request to drop the proceedings was submitted, inter alia, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee was bad in law. He contended that inquiry was based on Rule 61 of the BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006. According to him, the allegation that pending inquiry was not informed to the BSNL was baseless, since KIRTADS itself had informed BSNL by Annexure A13 communication dated 1.10.2016.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 14
18. Pending the OA, the inquiry was completed. By an interim order dated 10.6.2024 of this Tribunal respondents were directed to defer the passing of any order pursuant to the report. Aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Annexure A-8, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking the following relief:-
"i) To declare that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and continuation of the same by issuing Annexure A-8 charge memo is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents under BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
ii) to call for the records leading upto Annexure A-8 and set aside the same and all further proceedings pursuant thereto;
iii) to direct the respondents to disburse all the retiral benefits on his retirement from the services of the BSNL on 31.01.2020 including ex gratia payment, pension, DCRG, Provident fund and all other benefits available to him on sanctioning of voluntary retirement.
iv) To direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on all delayed payment of retiral benefits with effect from the original due date of such benefits."
19. Respondents filed a detailed reply statement in the O.A contending that the applicant produced a false certificate for securing employment. He did not disclose about the pending proceedings during the course of his employment and had appeared before the Committee. Rule 36 and Rule 61 of the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006 empower respondents to initiate such proceedings. It was contended that criminal complaint was also lodged. Without disclosing the pending proceedings, he took voluntary retirement and retired on 31.1.2020. His appointment was void ab initio 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 15 and right to salary or pension after the retirement from office depends on a valid and legal appointment. As BSNL was unaware of the proceedings, it gave vigilance clearance, consequent to which he retired. The caste certificate was cancelled and he challenged it unsuccessfully. BSNL had not instructed the counsel to make any submission that BSNL intended to disburse the retirement benefits. Disciplinary inquiry was completed which was proper and was awaiting orders of CMD.
20. In answer to the above contentions a rejoinder was filed. All the matters were heard together. Both sides were heard and examined the records.
21. Since OA No. 183 of 2024 is a more comprehensive one and has bearing on the contentions of both sides in all other connected proceedings, OA No. 183 of 2024 is taken as the leading case. The documents are referred to in the sequence in which they are marked in O.A, unless otherwise specifically referred.
22. In the present OA, the applicant has sought two main reliefs. First is to declare that the initiation and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings by Annexure A8 charge memo under BSNL (Conduct, 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 16 Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006 was in violation of the Constitution of India and hence liable to be set aside. The second relief sought was to direct the respondents to pay the entire retirement benefits due to the applicant with all consequential benefits including the DCRG, Provident Fund and all other benefits.
23. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the contention of the BSNL that they had not instructed the counsel to make any submission in the OP(CAT) that they were intending to disburse the retirement benefits in compliance with O.A/186/2020 does not appear to be true. It is seen recorded in the judgment that the learned counsel for the BSNL had conceded to such a disbursement. If that the lawyer was not so authorized, naturally the BSNL should have sought for a review of the judgment stating that no such concession was made with the authority of the BSNL. It was not done. Further though OP (CAT) was disposed of on 15.6.2023, such a contention is taken up only now, belatedly. Further, fully knowing about the concession made, the BSNL proceeded to engage the same lawyer in the present OA also, clearly indicating that the contention of the BSNL that no such submissions was made, cannot be accepted.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 17
24. The first ground alleged by the applicant herein was that he retired on 31.1.2020. Thereafter, memo of charges dated 16.12.2023 was served on him. At that time employer-employee relationship did not exist between applicant and the BSNL. BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006, produced as Annexure R2(c) permitted only the continuation of the existing proceedings. It was further contended that the inquiry proceedings were initiated several years after the alleged misconduct. Accordingly, on both grounds the proceedings initiated against the applicant is not sustainable, it was contended.
25. Rule 61(4)(1) provided that Chairman/Managing Director was the competent authority to issue sanction to institute the departmental proceedings against the absorbed employees after retirement and to order recovery from pension or gratuity of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the company, if the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Clearly this provision enables the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings even after retirement in the case of an absorbed employee. Admittedly, 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 18 the applicant had joined the DOT and thereafter, became an employee of BSNL, on being taken over by the BSNL.
26. The precise contention of the respondents as revealed from the charges levelled against him was that he did not disclose about the pendency of the proceedings pending against him, to his superiors and that he had participated in the proceedings. There is a fundamental error in this charge. The entire proceedings regarding caste status of applicant was initiated pursuant to a communication of the GM of BSNL itself to conduct an inquiry about the caste status, addressed to the scrutiny committee for verification of the caste certificate. It is disclosed in the report of the scrutiny committee itself. After having set in motion the inquiry proceedings, BSNL cannot now turn round and contend that they were not informed about the inquiry proceedings. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to Annexure A13, communication dated 1.10.2016 issued by the Vigilance Office of KIRTADS, Kozhikode addressed to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Thiruvalla with reference to the anthropological investigation into the caste determination of the applicant and service of notice on him for personal hearing. It reads as follows:
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 19 "As per the reference cited the Vigilance Cell of the Department has initiated an anthropological investigation as per Act 11 of 1996 on the community status of Sri Devarajan V.K., Sr. Telecom Operative, Assistant/Office Superintendent, BSNL, Thiruvalla, who is now working under you. As part of the investigation it has been decided to allow him a personal hearing to produce evidences in support of her claim. I am sending herewith notices in duplicate addressed to Sri. Devarajan V.K. which is self explanatory. I request that a copy of the notice may be served to him obtain his dated signature on the duplicate copy and ret urn the same as early as possible."
27. It clearly shows that the respondents were informed about the pending proceedings regarding the caste status and that the applicant was invited for a personal hearing. Evidently, the said notice was duly served on him by the BSNL. It is true that applicant did not formally intimate the details to superiors. The said notice was clearly addressed to the BSNL and stated the details of the proceeding. By the said notice BSNL was called upon to serve copy of notice on the applicant and to obtain the dated signature of applicant. After having served the notice on applicant, fully being aware of the contents, the respondents cannot now turn around and contend that the applicant did not reveal about the pendency of the proceedings and participated in the inquiry proceedings without notice to it. The misconduct alleged, hence appears to be more a technical one.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 20
28. The GO by which the caste certificate of the applicant was rejected is dated 31.3.2021. Copy of it was sent to BSNL. Applicant had retired in the meanwhile. The charge memo is dated 16.12.2023. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that at the relevant time of seeking VRS, no departmental or criminal proceedings were pending against him. The learned counsel specifically referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 9857 of 2021. It was stated therein as follows:
"9. .........................That being so, the factum of the petitioner being an 'Araya' and not a 'Mala Araya' is virtually without contest. However, whether any consequences of this should attach to him or follow him, are matters which are to be considered by his employer and not by this Court at the first instance. This is more so because, even in Ext.P7, Government of Kerala has only made a recommendation to the employer to take necessary action, if they are so interested.
10. However, as matters now stand, BSNL seems to be taking the position that they are intending to disburse the retiral benefits to the petitioner as per the directions in Ext.R8(a) order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. I do not think, therefore, that any further orders are required from this Court at this point of time."
29. Relying on it, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court was that the consequences that should follow the declaration that he does not belong to 'Mala Araya', ought to have been considered, in the background of the stand taken by the BSNL that they proposed to disburse the retirement 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 21 benefits. This, according to the respondents, did not mean a disciplinary proceedings, but the natural fall out of such declaration. The respondents were not justified in thereafter not disbursing it and proceeding against the applicant for a misconduct, it was contended.
30. Respondents vehemently contended that in the light of the order of the Government declaring that the applicant is not a 'Mala Araya' he is not entitled for any terminal benefits. It was contended that the applicant was entitled for pension only when his service was based on a valid appointment. Since he had produced a fake certificate, and procured an employment which he was not entitled to, the applicant was not eligible for the terminal benefits and all the natural consequences should follow.
31. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has a totally different contention on this aspect. It is pertinent to note that the caste certificate was issued to the applicant pursuant to the decree of a civil court in OS No. 487 of 1978 of Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. It was claimed that one of the parents of the applicant was a party to the original suit. The Original Suit was filed by several persons against the Kerala Government and the officers under it, for a declaration that the applicants' and their family 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 22 members belonged to 'Mala Araya' They claimed that they have been enjoying the benefits of Scheduled Tribe. In OP No. 717 of 1974 a member of the plaintiff's family was declared as a 'Mala Araya', it was claimed. The respondents' State of Kerala contested the proceeding. The contention of the applicants therein was that though they were enjoying the benefits of Scheduled Tribe status, one Government official refused to grant the benefit to one of its members just prior to the institution of the suit. This prompted them to file the civil suit. After trial it was declared that the applicants belonged to Scheduled Tribe.
32. The specific case of the plaintiff was that accordingly, the caste certificate was issued. In the light of a declaration by a civil court declaring that the applicant belonged to scheduled tribe, it cannot be held at this point of time that the applicant obtained the employment on the basis of a fake certificate. The status was determined thereafter, by another authority and the Government passed the consequential order. Whether a decree of a civil court granted after adjudication by a competent court which has become final, in the absence of a further challenge, can be set at naught by a report of KIRTADS has not been considered by any authority, it was contended. In the light of the decree it 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 23 cannot be said that the applicant submitted a fake certificate. It was a certificate which was declared to be bad at a later point of time, if at all, the report by KIRTADS can override a valid decree of Court. This is a fact which needs larger consideration. Hence, the declaration by Government, if at all sustainable can act prospectively, it was contended. However, it is pertinent to note that the GO was challenged in WP No. 9857/2021, it was not accepted and the GO has also become final.
33. To contend that charge sheet issued in a departmental inquiry is normally not subject to judicial review by the Court/Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a catena of decisions. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357]. In that Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review is confined to limited grounds and the Tribunals/Courts are not expected to examine the correctness of the charges particularly at the stage of framing of charges. It was held that such an exercise was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. K.S. Swaminathan 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 24 [(1996) 11 SC 498], wherein it was held that it is settled by a catena of decisions that if the charge memo is totally vague and does not disclose any misconduct for which the charges have been framed, the Tribunal or the Court would not be justified at that stage to go into whether the charges are true and could be gone into, for it would be a matter on production of the evidence. At the stage of framing of the charge, the statement of facts and the charges sheet supplied are required to be looked into by the Court or the Tribunal as to the nature of the charges i.e. whether the statement of facts and material in support thereof supplied to the delinquent would disclose the alleged misconduct.
34. The above position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. Here the court was dealing with premature impugning of a show cause notice or a charge sheet through a writ proceeding. While holding that such a procedure was not justifiable, it was held that no doubt in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence & 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 25 Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565], it was held that a charge sheet or show cause notice is normally not liable to be quashed, as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. However, it can be quashed on ground of issuing authority being not competent to issue the same or on ground of delay in initiating or concluding the enquiry proceedings causing prejudice to delinquent.
35. An analysis of the entire case laws indicates that quashing of the charge sheet at the primary stage is normally not done, except in very rare cases where delay is stated to be as one of the grounds as reiterated in Prabhash Chandra Mirdha's case (supra) or where charges itself are not sustainable. This is precisely the reason why such a ground is also raised in the present OA.
36. Applying the above case laws in the facts of this case, two facts emerge. In the light of Annexure A-13, BSNL cannot feign ignorance about the proceeding before KIRTADS. Above all, after having itself initiated proceeding for determining the caste status of the applicant, BSNL cannot turn around and contend that applicant did not inform the 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 26 respondents about the proceedings. Hence, that part of Charge I and Charge II to the extent of alleging that applicant has not intimated the BSNL is not sustainable. Further, the caste certificate was issued on the basis of a decree of a competent court, issued after due adjudication. The above certificate was held to be invalid only much later by KIRTADS. Whether the report of KIRTADS, arrived at by a purely fact finding authority can supercede the decree of a competent Civil Court needs larger examination. Since such a contention was not advanced by either side in detail, we do not propose to go deeper into that question. However, it is pertinent to note that the allegation in Charge III was that he was well aware that the caste certificate was a fake/false certificate at the time of production of it, and that he deliberately, knowingly and wilfully produced a false/fake certificate is absolutely unsustainable in the light of decree in OS 487/78 of Thiruvalla Munisiff Court. Hence, that charge is also unsustainable.
37. To substantiate the legal consequences that flow from obtaining a job/admission in colleges/schools on the basis of caste certificates which are found to be false/forged later, the learned counsel for both sides relied on a catena of decisions.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 27
38. This question was considered by the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. [(2008) 13 SCC 170]. The Supreme Court held that a person who gets appointed against a post reserved for ST on the basis of a forged social status certificate, is not entitled for any relief. It was held that the person having usurped a post meant for ST by deceit and fraud, cannot, upon termination, claim to be retained merely on the ground that she has worked in the post for over twenty years.
39. This question came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Vijayan P.S. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2013 (2) KHC149]. It was held that a community certificate cannot be cancelled on the mere finding that the person in whose favour the certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Before cancelling the certificate, the scrutiny committee has to form an opinion that it was obtained fraudulently. It was held that while deciding the issue the authority has to keep in mind that a false community certificate was issued by the competent authority to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, that such person belongs to Scheduled 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 28 Caste/Scheduled Tribe, that such person obtained fraudulently a forged certificate either for himself or his children, that before cancelling the certificate the person concerned should be given an opportunity to give representation. In K.N. Gopalakrishnan & Ors. v. The Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Claims & Ors. (MFA No. 1007 of 1999) the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held in an identical case that considering the fact that the petitioner did not commit any offence, the benefits already given to him shall not be recovered from him and no prosecution proceedings shall be taken for the past act. It was held that the decision of the scrutiny committee for verification of the claims will act only prospectively.
40. In Haridasan K.N. v. State Bank of Travancore & Ors. (2017 KHC
318) exactly similar situation arose. It was held that pension being a deferred salary, its deprivation is permissible only in strict compliance with the enabling provisions. In the absence of an express finding that the employee had committed any fraud in obtaining the community certificate, the employer cannot, without a clear enabling provision, withhold pension or retirement benefits due to him. Relying on Haridasan K.N.'s decision (supra), in Writ Petition No. 36865 of 2016 -
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 29 S. Rajani v. The Branch Manager & Ors., the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that the allegation that the certificate was fraudulently obtained would be a pre-requisite, which is conspicuously absent in that case. Hence, the respondents who had extracted long years of service from the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that she is not entitled to retirement benefits.
41. In Thankappan A.H. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2019 KHC
126), in an identical situation it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that in the absence of any fraud committed by the incumbents it was only fair and proper that whatever benefits they have obtained, need not be taken back. It was held that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any further benefits. This view was followed by another Single Bench of the Kerala High Court in a subsequent decision in WP© No. 39862 of 2016 - Rajan G. v. State of Kerala & Ors. After referring to various decisions, the Hon'ble High Court held that pension is a right vested in Government servant and the pension earned by him cannot be denied even when his community certificate is cancelled. The learned Single Judge reiterated the decision of the Kerala High Court in Haridasan K.N.'s decision (supra). It was held that pension was an essential concomitant of the past 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 30 service and it cannot be termed as a future benefit.
42. In K.N. Pushpavally & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (MFA No. 107 of 2006), an identical situation arose. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4] and in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2012) 8 SCC 430] held that the benefit of protection against ouster from appointments should not be extended to the appellants therein, with a rider that they would not be entitled to any further benefit by claiming their caste status. The benefits already given to them could not be recovered from them. However, it seems that Kavita Solunke's case (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decisions and held to be not good law.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue in Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 977). That was a case wherein the 1st respondent obtained employment against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste. Subsequently, it was found that the certificate was bad. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 31 relied on an earlier decision in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira [(2017) 8 SCC 670] in which three Judges Bench had held that the person who has obtained the certificate had played fraud on the Constitution and hence not entitled for any benefit.
44. However, referring to the decision in Jagdish Balaram Bahira's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine SC 834) held that the consistent view of the Supreme Court was that obtaining a false caste certificate amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and the persons who does so virtually displaces another competent person. Hence, they are not entitled to continue in service and they are also not entitled for any future benefits. However, in several cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has moulded the reliefs and permitted the persons to enjoy the benefits which has already accrued including pensionary benefits and all other terminal benefits.
45. It seems that regarding this, the law seems to be consistent that holding of a post based on a false/forged certificate cannot give rise to 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 32 any right to continue in service. However, in several cases the pension and terminal benefits have been protected depending on the facts of each case. In this case, the applicant had already availed VRS and had gone out of employment. Hence, the crucial question that remains is whether the applicant is entitled for any consequential benefits.
46. In the case at hand the applicant was issued a valid certificate on the basis of a decree of a competent court. It was subsequently set aside. He has rendered long years of service in the meanwhile. Once the certificate is held to be void and Government order issued, he is not entitled for any claim thereafter. That can only be prospective as held in all the above decisions. However, this will not preclude the applicant from claiming the terminal benefits. Consequently, the respondents are bound to release the entire benefits due to him. Accordingly, the OA is liable to be allowed.
47. Though a Review Application No. 1 of 2022 has been filed in OA No. 186 of 2020, in the light of the findings arrived at by now and reliefs which are to follow, we find no ground to interfere with. The only anxiety of the respondents seems to be that if the entire amount is paid to the applicant as per order in OA, still the liability with the Society and 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 33 debtors of the applicant who are arrayed as respondents in that OA will continue. The original stand of BSNL was that the applicant should get a certificate from them to indemnify the employer. We feel that in the above circumstances, the respondents are bound to comply with the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 186 of 2020 and disburse the amount due to the applicant to the additional respondents, in full and if the entire amount will not cover the whole debt, on a pro-rata basis among the additional respondent that payment will completely and fully absolve the review applicant from all their liabilities. If further amount is due to the creditors, they will have to proceed against the applicant in the OA, personally and from his assets.
48. In the light of the above clarification, the Contempt Petition is closed. Accordingly, the OA No. 183 of 2024 is allowed and RA No. 1 of 2022 is also closed. In the result:
a) OA No. 183 of 2024 is allowed. Enquiry proceedings and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A8 charge memo is declared as bad in law and set aside.
b) The applicant will be entitled for all terminal benefits as per 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 34 law. The BSNL shall quantify the amount due and pay to the creditors of the applicant arrayed as respondents in OA No. 186 of 2020 in terms of that order. If the entire amount cannot be paid, it shall be distributed among the creditors on pro-rata basis, which will completely absolve BSNL of all its obligations. The entire amount shall be paid with in three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which it will carry 6% interest.
c) Contempt Petition No. 14 of 2021 is closed in the light of the above clarification.
d) RA No. 1 of 2022 is closed in the light of order in OA No. 183 of 2024. No costs.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
2026.01.09
Sebastian Antony
15:59:17+05'30'
35
Review Application No. 180/00001/2022 in
Original Application No. 180/00186/2020
REVIEW APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure RA1 - True copy of the order dated 19.2.2021 in OA No. 186 of 2020 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure RA2 - True copy of the order NO.
2607286/G3/2018/SCSTDD dated 3.3.2021 issued by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates.
Annexure RA3 - True copy of the GO(Ms) No. 25/2021/SCSTDD dated 31.3.2021.
Annexure RA4 - True copy of the said communication No. HR-I/40- 9/SCT/DVK&KNP/2018/42 dated 22.3.2021.
Annexure RA5 - True copy of the order dated 23.4.2021 in WPC No. 9857 of 2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Annexure RA6 - True copy of the communication No. BSNLCO-
A/15(16)/13/2023-ESTAB dated 14.12.2023. Annexure RA7 - True copy of the Memorandum dated 16.12.2023 along with Annexure-I to IV.
Annexure RA8 - True copy of the reply dated 21.12.2023 submitted by the 1st respondent.
Annexure RA9 - True copy of the order dated 31.1.2024 appointing Mr. Jenu John as the presenting officer.
Annexure RA10- True copy of the order dated 31.1.2024 appointing Mr. Manoj P.K. as the enquiring authority.
Annexure RA11- True copy of the communication dated 1.1.2024 along 2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 36 with letter dated 27.12.2018 issued by SCT Cell and letter dated 28.11.2018 issued by CVO.
Annexure RA12- True copy of the communication No. G2-18700/19 dated 5.7.2021.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of communication No. V1711/16(24) dated 1.10.2016 issued to this respondent by the 4th review applicant, the General Manager, BSNL, Pathanamthitta.
Annexure R1(b)- True copy of OM No. 38/09(02)/2020-P&PW-(A) (6721) dated 30.11.2021 issued by the Central Government.
Annexure R1(c)- Communication No. 60-2/2020-SCT(Pt) dated 25.4.2022 circulated by the BSNL for implementation of Annexure R1(b).
Contempt Petition No. 180/00014/2021 in Original Application No. 180/00186/2020 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure P1 - True copy of the order in OA No. 180/186/2020 dated 19.2.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Annexure P2 - True copy of statement dated 12.2020 filed by the respondents in OA No. 186 of 2020.
2026.01.09
Sebastian Antony
15:59:17+05'30'
37
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the order No.
2607286/G3/2018/SCSTDD dated 3.3.2021 issued by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates.
Annexure R1(b)- True copy of the GO(Ms) No. 25/2021/SCSTDD dated 31.3.2021.
Annexure R1(c)- True copy of the communication No. HR-I/40- 9/SCT/DVK&KNP/2018/42 dated 22.3.2021.
Annexure R1(d)- True copy of the order dated 23.4.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court in WPC No. 9857 of 2021.
Original Application No. 180/00183/2024 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme-
2019 published by notification No. 1-15/2019-PAT (BSNL) dated 4.11.2019 by the BSNL.
Annexure A2 - True copy of communication No. VRS 2019/2300/2311/A/0000000013 dated 2.1.2020 sent by the General Manager/Telecom District, Thiruvalla to the applicant and others.
Annexure A3 - True copy of pension payment order No. 692020012203648 dated 27.4.2020 issued to the applicant by the office of the Controller of Communication Accounts, BSNL.
Annexure A4 - True copy of certificate No. KDis8691/1976 dt.
18.5.1976 issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruvalla to the applicant.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 38 Annexure A5 - True copy of Government order No. GO (MS) No. 25/2021/SCSTDD dated 31.3.2021 issued by the Government of Kerala.
Annexure A6 - True copy of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the additional respondent No. 8 the Chief General Manager, BSNL in WP© No. 9857 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A7 - True copy of judgment dated 15.6.2023 in WP© No. 9857 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A8 - True copy of memorandum of charges No. KL PTA-
11/11(19)/1/2023-ADMN PTA KRL, dated
16.12.2023.
Annexure A9 - True copy of explanation dated 21.12.2023 submitted
by the applicant before the Principal General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Tiruvalla, Pathanamthitta BA. Annexure A10 - True copy of notice No. BSNL-PTA-AGM-ADMN-
GEN-2024-1 dated 17.2.2024 issued by the inquiring authority (Asst. General Manager), BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla to the applicant.
Annexure A11 - True copy of request dated 21.2.2024 submitted byt eh applicant before the inquiring authority (Asst. General Manager), BSNL Bhavan, Thiruvalla.
Annexure A12 - True copy of the relevant portion of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.
Annexure A13 - True copy of communication No. V 1711/16(24) dated 1.10.2016 issued by KIRTADS to BSNL.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 39 Annexure A14 - True copy of OM No. 38/09(02)/2020-P&PW-(A) (6721) dated 30.11.2021 issued by the Central Government.
Annexure A15 - True copy of communication No. 60-2/2020-SCT(Pt) dated 25.4.2022 issued by the BSNL.
Annexure A16 - True copy of judgment dated 4.2.1981 in OS No. 487 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. Annexure A17 - True copy of written submission dated 21.2.2024 by the applicant before the enquiring authority. Annexure A18 - True copy of written request dated 28.2.2024 submitted by the applicant before the enquiring authority.
Annexure A19 - True copy of request dated 11.3.2024 submitted by the applicant before the enquiring authority. Annexure A20 - True copy of communication dated 14.3.2024 issued by the enquiry officer to the applicant.
Annexure A21 - True copy of request dated 20.3.2024 submitted by the applicant before the enquiring authority. Annexure A22 - True copy of communication dated 12.4.2024 issued by the enquiry officer to the applicant.
Annexure A23 - True copy of written submission dated 20.4.2024 submitted by the applicant before the enquiry officer.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a)- True copy of the order No.
2607286/G3/2018/SCSTDD dated 3.3.2021 issued by the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 40 Annexure R2(b)- True copy of the order No. G2-18700/19 dated 5.7.2021.
Annexure R2(c)- True copy of the full set of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006.
Annexure R2(d)- True copy of the option dated 11.3.2020. Annexure R2(e)- True copy of the IA No. 1 of 2024 in RP NO. 835 of 2023 filed by the 2nd respondent before the Hon'ble High Court.
Annexure R2(f)- True copy of the order dated 29.1.2024 in RP No. 835 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
Annexure R2(g)- True copy of the record of proceedings dated 21.2.2024.
Annexure R2(h)- True copy of the record of proceedings of the enquiry officer conducted on 28.2.2024.
Annexure R2(i)- True copy of the record of proceedings dated 20.3.2024 of the inquiry officer.
Annexure R2(j)- True copy of the record of proceedings dated 3.4.2024 of the enquiry officer.
Annexure R2(k)- True copy of the enquiry report dated 15.5.2024 of the inquiry officer.
Annexure R2(l)- True copy of the DOPT OM No. 36027/1/2017- Estt.(Res.) dated 1.6.2017.
Annexure R2(m)-True copy of the DOPT OM No. 36011/1/2012- Estt.(Res.) dated 10.1.2013.
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30' 41 Annexure R2(n)- True copy of the amended WPC No. 9857 of 2021 along with all exhibits.
Annexure R2(o)- True copy of the RP No. 835 of 2023 along with all exhibits.
Annexure R2(p)- True copy of the communication No. BSNL Co-
A/15(16)/13/2023-ESTAB dated 14.12.2023. Annexure R2(q)- True copy of the order dated 31.1.2024 appointing Mr. Jenu John as the presenting officer.
Annexure R2(r)- True copy of the order dated 31.1.2024 appointing Mr. Manoj P.K. as the enquiring authority.
Annexure R2(s)- True copy of the communication dated 1.1.2024 along with letter dated 27.12.2018 issued by SCT Cell and letter dated 28.11.2018 issued by CVO.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
2026.01.09 Sebastian Antony 15:59:17+05'30'