Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K K Sasidharan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 24 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00778/2016
Tuesday , this the 24th day of February, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.K. Sasidharan, aged 59 years, S/o K.K. Krishnan, Telecom Mechanic
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Office of the Sub Divisional
Engineer/External/South Boat Jetty Telephone Exchange
Kochi-682 011 Residing at House No.38/942, Gandhi Nagar North End,
Kochi-682 020
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Kala T Gopi]
Versus
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,
Harishchandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001
2. The Chief General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033
3. The Principal General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(BSNL) Kalathiparambil Road, Ernakulam Kochi-682 016
4. Smt. Jolly Alphonsa, Sr. Telecom Supervisor (OP), Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited Telephone Exchange, Boat Jetty Kochi-682 011
5. Smt. Sheela Devi PV, Chairperson, Women's Complaint Committee
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Kalathiparambil Road, Ernakulam
Kochi-682 016
6. The Deputy General Manager Telecom (CFA-NWO) Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (BSNL), BSNL Bhavan Old Block, Kalathiparambil Road,
Ernakulam Kochi-682 016
-Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr.T.C.Krishna]
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30'
2
The application having been heard on 19.12.2025, the Tribunal on
24.02.2026 delivered the following order:
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Telecom Mechanic in BSNL. He had commenced service as Lineman on 24.07.1981 and was promoted as Telecom Mechanic during 2005. He has approached the Tribunal for quashing Annexure-A1 enquiry report filed by the 5th respondent in her capacity as Chairperson, Womens' Complaint Committee, WCC for short, Annexure-A2 memorandum of charges containing three Articles of charges raised against the applicant alleging that he is guilty of misconduct punishable under Rules 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 2006, the Rules for short, and Annexure-A14 order passed by the 3 rd respondent rejecting Annexure-A13 representation dated 30.03.2016 seeking to quash Annexure-A1 report. He further seeks to grant all consequential benefits as if Annexures-A1, A2 and A14 had not been issued at all.
2. According to the applicant, initially, he was allotted quarter No.AF-2, a Type-1 quarter for the occupation of himself and his family in Thevara. Later, on being promoted as Telecom Mechanic, he was granted quarter CR-1 in 2007. The 4th respondent, a colleague of the applicant was Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 3 occupant of the neighboring quarters. For some unknown reasons, the 4 th respondent developed ill-will against the applicant. She had a habit of making unnecessary complaints against the neighboring occupants and the applicant also became a victim. She had sent complaints against the applicant also.
3. On 06.05.2013, DGM(CFA), Ernakulam served him a memo alleging that he was in the habit of abusing neighboring residents using vulgar language in defamatory manner, in intoxicated conditions he had abused the 4th respondent in front of other office staff calling her a prostitute, he continued to abuse her in vulgar language, used to spit at her in the canteen as well as main gate saying that she is a prostitute, that her husband acts as a pimp etc. Meanwhile, by Annexure-A4 order dated 01.05.2013, based on the committee report submitted pursuant to the complaint of the 4 th respondent, the Assistant General Manager had cancelled his allotment of quarters, against which he preferred Annexure-A5 appeal before the 3rd respondent.
4. He had also submitted Annexure-A6 explanation pursuant to Annexure-A3, before the 3rd respondent.
5. According to the applicant, Annexure-A1 report, which is the foundation of Annexure-A4 order, was never served on him; when application under Right to Information Act was filed and appeal before the first appellate Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 4 authority was rejected, at last he had to move the Central Information Commission for getting the report, as evident from Annexure-A7. Later, he received a copy of Annexure-A8 complaint of the 4 th respondent, where she had complained of alleged abuse made by him. After filing Annexure-A6, nothing was heard further about Annexure-A3. Then he received Annexure- A9 communication from the Assistant General Manager directing to vacate the quarters immediately. Against that, he approached this Tribunal with Annexure-A10, O.A.112/2016, which is pending. As an interim stay was not granted, he approached the Hon'ble High Court with OP(CAT) 79/2016. There also, he was not granted any interim order.
6. The O.A was filed on 05.09.2016. According to the applicant, he is due for retirement on 30.11.2016. Though he does not have residential accommodation of his own, after receipt of Annexure-A2 he vacated the quarters on 15.07.2016. At the same time, the impugned documents are bad for numerous reasons. There was no allegation of any sexual harassment against him either in work place or elsewhere; even in the complaint initially submitted by the 4th respondent, there is no such allegation against him. The WCC has no jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint and make a report thereon against him. Annexure-A1 is without jurisdiction and beyond the Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 5 scope of the power of WCC and is unconstitutional.
7. Further it is submitted that WCC was collecting evidence behind him without even serving a copy of the complaint to him. They did not record the evidence. A copy of the report was not served on him even on demand. He got the copy only in 2014 when ordered by the Chief Information Commissioner.
8. Further, both Annexures-A1 and A2 were issued by Sheela Devi, the 5th respondent who has personal interest in the matter. That has caused considerable prejudice to the applicant. It is opposed to principles of natural justice, that no one should be a judge in his own case.
9. According to the applicant, such a memo has been issued to the applicant to coerce him to withdraw O.A.112/2016, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and amounts to unlawful interference in the administration of justice.
10. Further, it is submitted that the procedure adopted by the 5 th respondent in arriving at an adverse conclusion against the applicant is in transgression of the principles of natural justice, wholly unknown to a civilised country governed by the rule of law. Annexure-A14 lacks reasons; Annexure- A2 was issued out of malice and ill-will and not for bonafide reasons. It is Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 6 unsustainable being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution.
11. O.A. was filed while the applicant was in service. Later he retired on 30.11.2016. Immediately after serving Annexure-A2 Memo of Charges he vacated the premises. Though notices were served on party respondents 4 and 5, they chose to remain ex-parte.
12. Respondents 1 to 3 and 6 in the joint reply statement filed on 31.10.2016 have opposed the O.A. as not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, Annexure-A1 is dated 27.04.2013. But the O.A. was filed only in 2016. Under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Act for short, any appeal filed against recommendations made or report made under Sections 13, 14 or 17 should be submitted before the Court or Tribunal within 90 days. Therefore, the O.A. challenging Annexure-A1 is highly belated.
13. The 4th respondent who was residing adjacent to the quarters of the applicant had submitted complaint against him, which was referred to the WCC and by its report Annexure-A1, the committee recommended that steps should be taken to vacate the quarters immediately. On the basis of that report, the applicant was allotted a quarters at Panampilly Nagar and was directed to vacate the instant quarters at Thevara. However, the applicant Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 7 refused and continued to stay at Thevara, violating Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules. Then the 3rd respondent directed disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him. In the proceedings, the applicant was found guilty of the charges and was directed to vacate the quarters immediately. Still, he refused and continue to occupy the same. He also began to influence other inmates and made people to write letters to the BSNL authorities explaining his innocence. It was a clear violation of Rule 22 of the Rules, for such acts punishment under Rule 35 was imposed on him and the appeal was rejected. Even thereafter, he refused to vacate the quarter. Annexure-A2 charge was issued under such circumstance. That proceeding is pending. Even though the enquiry was posted on 09.09.2016 and 26.09.2016, he had not co-operated and failed to appear on both the posting dates.
14. Further, it was contended that Annexure-A1 is the report of the WCC signed by Smt.Sheela Devi, who was the Chairperson of the Committee, basing on which he was asked to vacate the quarters. But he continued to stay there. Meanwhile, Sheela Devi was promoted as DGM and another officer was posted as Chairperson of the WCC. As per the Rules, DGM is the disciplinary authority of the Group-C employees and that was why the 5 th respondent had signed the Annexure-A2 memo.
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 8
15. According to the respondents, it is discernible from paragraph 4(1) of Annexure-A13 that the applicant had received Annexure-A1 on 01.12.2014. If the applicant was aggrieved, he should have filed an appeal within 90 days from the date of the report.
16. Further, the allegation that the 4 th respondent was in the habit of filing repeated complaints against her neighbors is not correct. On receipt of Annexure-A1 report, allocation of quarter of the applicant was cancelled and he was allotted another quarter at Panampilly Nagar. The appeal filed against Annexure-A4 was also rejected. The WCC had made enquiry on receipt of complaint of abuse from the 4th respondent in work place and quarters by using mean and filthy language.
17. Further, it is submitted that on finding that the applicant had violated Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules, a strong warning was issued against him. Such a report was given by the committee consisting of Smt.Sheela Devi as the Chairperson. There was no question of showing vengeance or prejudice against the applicant. After asking him to vacate the quarter at Thevara, he was allotted another quarter in Panampilly Nagar. On inspection it was found that he had made unauthorised constructions in the quarter at Thevara and that prompted the respondents to issue Annexure-A2 charge memo. As Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 9 already stated, he is not co-operating with the enquiry into the charges. Thus, the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
18. The applicant did not file any rejoinder.
19. We heard Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
20. Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Annexure-A1 and subsequent proceedings are clear abuses of the provisions of the Act. The applicant had been occupying quarters from 1983. CR-I was allotted to him on 30.08.2007. However, on the basis of Annexure-A8, it does not disclose any ingredient of 'sexual harassment' as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act. Then such a committee was constituted; the course adopted by the committee is strange, he was not informed of its proceedings nor he was given opportunity to present his version. Even a copy of Annexure-A1 could be secured only when he had approached the Chief Information Commissioner with a Second Appeal. He got copy of Annexure- A1 only along with Annexure-A7.
21. The learned counsel also pointed out that the 4 th respondent had always been in antagonistic terms with him. She had made very many police complaints; whenever he had approached Courts seeking anticipatory bail, Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 10 applications were closed stating that no case was registered against him. She had always been on inimical terms with other neighbours as well. When Annexure-A14 order of cancellation was issued, he gave detailed reply, Annexure-A5. Against Annexure-A2, he gave detailed reply under Annexure- A12 on 18.07.2016. Though detailed statement was given, a one line reply has been given as Annexure-A14, which cannot stand scrutiny.
22. According to the learned counsel, till the receipt of a copy under the Right to Information Act, he had no idea about Annexure-A1 report. Annexure-A2 memo of charges is based on Annexure-A1. When Annexure-A1 goes, Annexure-A2 and A14 also should go. Annexure-A1 is barred by principles of natural justice. Such an enquiry is violative of the provisions of the Act or the guidelines given in Visakha case.
23. Regarding Annexure-A2, he said that the very same officer who prepared Annexure-A1 has given such a memo, which is illegal. Annexure-A14 is non-speaking and Annexure-A15 has not been responded at all.
24. On the other hand, according to Sri.T.C.Krishna, Annexure-A2 is not based on Annexure-A1. After the cancellation of CR-I quarter at Thevara, the applicant was allotted another quarters at Panampilly Nagar. When the quarters initially allotted to him in Panampilly Nagar was not taken by him, Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 11 another quarter was allotted. The applicant was asked to vacate the premises long before. Even though a warning was imposed on him, he refused to vacate the premises and that prompted to issue Annexure-A2. The applicant has already vacated the premises on 15.07.2016. He has also retired from service on 30.11.2016. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant did not co-operate with the enquiry proceedings initiated pursuant to Annexure-A2. Ultimately, on retirement, 2% cut was imposed on his pension for one year; on expiry of one year that punishment has gone and now he is getting regular pension without any reduction. He has not suffered any other punishment like reduction in gratuity etc. Learned counsel also reiterated that the O.A. is barred by limitation. According to him, by lapse of time, the O.A. has become infructuous.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, denied the contention that the O.A. has become infructuous. He has contested the arguments touching bar under limitation also.
26. Annexure-A1 is a report after enquiring into the complaint of the 4th respondent, which was filed on 27.01.2013. Reckoning the date from that day or the date of the report, the O.A. must be taken as barred by limitation. But, having regard to the materials on record and the contentions raised at Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 12 the Bar, we cannot endorse the version of the learned Standing Counsel. It is the specific case of the applicant that he was not served with Annexure-A1, he had to move the Chief Information Commissioner at New Delhi with a Second Appeal, under the Right to Information Act for getting copy of the same, he got copy of the report only under Annexure-A7 in November 2019 and therefore the O.A. cannot be held as barred by limitation. We are of the view that the contention of the applicant touching on the objection of bar under limitation have to be upheld.
27. All the same, even though Annexure-A1 was submitted after an enquiry by a committee for probing into the allegations of sexual harassment, it is seen that Annexure-A8 complaint of the 4 th respondent dated 27.01.2013 was the basis of the enquiry. But the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations in Annexure-A8 do not fall within the definition of 'sexual harassment' defined under Section 2(n) of the Act.
28. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Standing Counsel have placed heavy reliance on the provisions of the Act for advancing the respective contentions. But we are unable to understand as to how the provisions of the Act have become applicable in the facts of the case. The Act was notified on 09.12.2013. But the Annexure-A1 report was filed on Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 13 27.04.2013 on the basis of Annexure-A8 complaint dated 27.01.2013. That means, during the period when such allegations were raised by the 4 th respondent against the applicant and follow up actions were taken by the WCC and the report was submitted, the Act was not in force and what was relevant was the guidelines issued by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Visakha case [(1997) 6 SCC 241].
29. Either from Annexure-A8 or from Annexure-A1 it is not clear that allegations of sexual harassment were raised against the applicant for initiating proceedings based on Visakha guidelines. At the same time, from Annexure-A8 it is clear that the applicant had been incessantly troubling the 4th respondent and her family, who were staying in the next door of the applicant. Though Annexure-A3 is subsequent to the proceedings, by the time it is certain that the applicant had been troubling her, even depicting her as a whore and describing her husband as a pimp. Whatever it may be, Annexure- A8 does not show that the 4th respondent had raised allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant.
30. The applicant is sceptical about the enquiry conducted by the WCC. But, at this distance of time, for two reasons, a plea for quashing Annexure-A1 cannot be accepted. Firstly, there is no finding against the Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 14 applicant that he had committed sexual violations or sexual harassment against the 4th respondent. Secondly, after making local inspection and gathering materials from different sources, the committee had reasons to conclude that the applicant had made unauthorised constructions in the official quarter and that was why they had recommended for cancelling his allotment and to get the additional constructions undone. It is well within the domain of a duly constituted committee to make recommendations on the basis of the facts noticed by it after local inspection. It noticed unauthorised constructions having been made to the quarters and it was well within its jurisdiction to make lawful recommendations/ suggestions which cannot be upset either legally or factually.
31. Visakha guidelines or the Act do not lay down the procedure to be followed by the WCC. That means, the committee could adopt its own procedures for collecting materials for forming opinion. We have already pointed out that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the case since the alleged incidents and cause of action for appointing a committee had happened much prior to the promulgation of the Act.
32. We do not find valid reasons to quash Annexure-A1. May be based on Annexure-A1 report and other materials gathered by the official Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 15 respondents that the applicant was directed to vacate the premises. He did not oblige the positive directions issued by the respondents. Ultimately, he had to be warned. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated as a last resort, only when he did not oblige to vacate the premises. It is the common case that after service of Annexure-A2 the applicant has vacated the premises on 15.07.2016 prior to retiring from service on superannuation.
33. It has come out that the applicant had filed O.A.112/2016. Annexure-A10 is the copy of the O.A. filed before the Tribunal. Applicant has a case that Annexure-A2 was issued for the purpose of neutralising that O.A. When the applicant moved this O.A., O.A.112/2016 was pending. This Tribunal did not grant any interim order staying his eviction from the official quarters. Though he moved the High Court, the High Court also did not intervene. Ultimately, that O.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal on merits on 24.11.2016.
34. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that following Annexure-A2 when a formal enquiry was conducted, the applicant did not co- operate and at last a punishment of 2% cut in pension was imposed on him for a period of one year and that period also has already expired. In the circumstances, there is no meaning in challenging Annexure-A2.
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 16
35. True, 'nemo debet esse judex in propria causa', that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause is a principle of universal application. But that is not applicable against the 5th respondent merely for the reason that she had headed the WCC and submitted Annexure-A1 report. That report was the recommendation of a committee consisting of numerous persons and it was the outcome of deliberations of all the members and the 5th respondent cannot be singled out. Moreover, later, after passage of time, since the applicant had failed to oblige the directions of the respondents to vacate the premises, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated againt him. At that time, she had become the Dy. General Manager, being the disciplinary authority, the mantle of issuing memo of charges fell on her. Both were done in different capacities. Moreover, the applicant has not stated as to what prejudice had caused to him since the 5 th respondent herself issued the memo of charges.
36. It is also certain that, in such proceedings, disciplinary authority is not the final authority. Any decision taken by the disciplinary authority is capable of being modified by the appellate and revisional authorities. Later, judicial review is also available to the aggrieved.
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 17
37. Moreover, as noticed earlier, the learned Standing Counsel had submitted that Annexure-A2 had ended in effecting 2% cut in the pension of the applicant for one year. That means, that proceedings have reached a logical conclusion. If aggrieved, such an argument could have been advanced by him in a challenge against the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings which he did not attempt. In the circumstance, this argument is not sustainable.
38. It is true that Annexure-A14 is a cryptic order. But, having regard to the circumstances and lapse of time, there is no meaning in re-opening these matters at this length of time. We do no find reasons to grant any relief to the applicant.
The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30'
18
List of Annexures
Annexure A1. True copy of the Inquiry Report bearing No.WCC/2012-13/39 dated 27.04.2013 issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure A2. True copy of the Memorandum bearing No.DGM(EKM)/X- 7/Dis/KKS/22 dated 02 July 2016. issued by the 6th respondent. Annexure A3: True copy of the Memorandum bearing No.DGM.EKM/X1/Dis/ 67 dated 06.05.2013 issued by the 6th respondent.
Annexure A4: True copy of the letter bearing No.Bll/105/02-2012/113 dated 01.05.2013.
Annexure A5: True copy of the appeal submitted by the applicant dated 28.5.2013 before the 3rd respondent Principal General Manager. Annexure A6: True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant dated 13.05.2013, addressed to the 6th respondent.
Annexure A7: True copy of the order of the Central Information Commission bearing No. CIC/BS/A/2013/003011/6403 dated 21.11.2014. Annexure A8: True copy of the complaint of Smt. Jolly Alphonse dated 27.1.2013.
Annexure A8(a): A true translation of Annexure A8.
Annexure A9: A true copy of order bearing No.B-II/105/02-13/79 dated 29 January 2016 issued from the office of the 3nd respondent Annexure A10: True copy of the Original Application No.112/2016, along with its annexures.
Annexure A11: True copy of the judgment in OP (CAT) No.79/2016 dated 01.03.2016, rendered by this Hon'ble Court.
Annexure A12: True copy of the reply submitted by the applicant dated 18.07.2016 addressed to the 6th respondent.
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30' 19 Annexure A13: True copy of the appeal submitted by the applicant addressed to the 3rd respondent Principal General Manager.
Annexure A14: True copy of the order bearing No.PF/KKS/ENK/SSA/Ty/29 dated 22.04.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A15: True copy of the appeal submitted by the applicant addressed to the 2nd respondent Chief General Manager, Trivandrum.
*************
Deepa S 2026.02.24 15:12:26+05'30'