Gujarat High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Through Chief ... vs T.V.Patel - Divisional on 5 December, 2003
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER....Petitioner(s)V/ST.V.PATEL - DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (EXTN.)....Respondent(s) C/SCA/17027/2004 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17027 of 2004 ================================================================ BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER....Petitioner(s) Versus T.V.PATEL - DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (EXTN.)....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MS PJ DAVAWALA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANAND L SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI Date : 21/03/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Davawala for the petitioner Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through Chief General Manager.
Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the order impugned i.e. judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 passed in O.A.No. 96 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to order passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11651 of 2005. Learned advocate of the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the relevant part of the order, which reads as under:
CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 11651 OF 2005 (UNION OF INDIA VS. T.V.Patel) The Tribunal had elaborately dealt with the contentions of both the sides on merits. The writ petition of the Union of India before the High Court also raised many grounds to be dealt with on merits. However, the High Court has only dealt with the question of non-supply of copy of advice tendered by the UPSC before passing of the order of punishment which has already has been dealt with by us. Special Civil Application No.17027 of 2004 is now restored to the file of the High Court. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for disposal on merit on other grounds urged before the Court.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed for only reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay till 30.11.2001 and this was with further stipulation that, during this period, he will not continue to earn increments of pay and, on expiry of period of reduction, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay.
Learned advocate for the employee submitted that this penalty has resulted into less pay during the last year of his service, whereby his terminal benefits like pension, gratuity and leave encasements are adversely affected, and therefore, it is the case of the employee that penalty is excessive. The Tribunal has also taken the same into consideration and allowed the O.A by quashing and setting aside the penalty imposed on the applicant.
Learned advocate for the employee submitted that the Hon ble Tribunal was pleased to base its order mainly on two grounds i.e. the penalty imposed on another officer viz. Shri.L.S.Panchal, who was serving as JTO at the relevant time and the question of contributory negligence was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority at the time of imposing punishment on the petitioner and second that copy of UPSC report was not applied to the delinquent which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice are violated.
Learned advocate for the employee submitted that now, that the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the copy of the UPSC report was not required to be supplied and non-supply of such copy has not vitiated the decision of the disciplinary authority, the aspect of not considering the penalty imposed on junior officer Shri.L.S.Panchal and the asepect of the contributory negligence is required to be taken into consideration by this Court.
At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks time to place on record the amount of retiral benefits like pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc. actually paid to the employee after taking into consideration the punishment imposed and the amount payable by way of pension, gratuity and leave encashment, if the punishment is not there.
At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, S.O. to 03.04.2013.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Girish Page 4 of 4