Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rangaswamy R vs Bsnl on 17 February, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00689/2024
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sri Rangaswamy R
S/o late Rangashetty,
Aged about 63 years,
Junior Engineer (Junior Telecom Officer),
Office of the Telephone Exchange,
Srirangapatna, Mandya District
Residing at No. 395, HPO and RMS Layout,
Shakthi Nagara, Mysore 570 029 .... Applicant
(By Shri B.O. Anil Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. The Senior General Manager,
Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore 570 029
2. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Karnataka Circle,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
No. 1, S.V. Road, Halasur,
Bengaluru 560 008
3. The Chairman and Managing Director
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
Barakamba Road,
New Delhi 110 001 .... Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel)
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
KAVYA SHREE K
2026.02.24
17:56:57+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(1) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned Order bearing: No. DISC-Rule-36/RR-JE/2019-20/05 dated 25.06.2021 (Ann-A10) issued by R1 and Appellate Order bearing No. HRD-II/5-32/DEEMED RESIGNATION/KTK/ 2022/13 dated 29.11.2023 (Ann-A12) issued by Respondent No. 2, with all consequential benefits.
(2) Pass such other order/s, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he was initially appointed as Technician temporarily in the Indian Postal Telecom Department with one year training from 30.03.1981 to 29.03.1982. After completion of prescribed training, he was appointed as Technician on 01.07.1982. Further, he was promoted as Telecom Technical Assistant on 30.11.1996. In view of bifurcation of the Indian Postal Telecom Department into Department of Telecom and Department of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in the year 2000, option was called by the respondents for absorption KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE from the employees. Accordingly, the applicant exercised his option for absorption in the Department of BSNL in the same service condition with effect from 01.10.2000. Subsequently, the applicant after undergoing induction training for 16 weeks successfully got promotion as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) and posted to Srirangapatna on officiating basis. In the meantime, the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Office of the Telecom District Manager (TDM), Mandya had transferred the applicant from Srirangapatna to Nagamangala to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), which is a lower post. As the applicant was under medical treatment, he could not attend the office and perform duty at Nagamangala from 02.01.2015 to 24.11.2015 after submitting the leave application. The applicant was denied opportunity to report for duty on 26.11.2015 at Srirangapatna. The same was communicated to the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya by person as well as through registered post with acknowledgement due but the respondents have not permitted the applicant to report for duty and no order was issued in this regard. However, the respondents have taken paper publication dated 02.01.2015 alleging unauthorized absence of the applicant for duty pursuant to which the applicant submitted the representations dated 03.03.2016 and 04.03.2016, denying the same. In the KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE meantime, the respondents have stated to have been issued charge sheet and the same was said to have been served upon his last known address which was returned back with remarks of "addressee absent regularly" by the postal department. A final notice was served on 25.05.2021 as the last opportunity to appear and defend himself against the charges framed. Thereafter, the respondents have taken one more paper publication on 02.06.2021. The applicant coming to know about the paper publication made an effort to join for duty on 29.06.2021 but in the meantime, the Respondent No. 1 had issued the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 invoking Rule 12 (2) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 ('Rules' for short), imposing the punishment of Deemed Resignation with effect from 02.01.2015 for unauthorized absence of more than five years making it clear that the applicant shall not be entitled for any retirement benefits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority - Respondent No. 2 which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned counsel Shri B.O. Anil Kumar submits that the respondents can invoke Rule 12 of the Rules only if the government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period of KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE exceeding five years but the applicant reported to duty on 26.11.2015 which was not accepted and considered by the respondents. Before invoking the said provision, it was mandatory to provide reasonable opportunity to the applicant. No such notice was issued to the applicant for the proposed punishment imposed under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules. Pursuant to the charge sheet issued to the applicant, no enquiry was conducted. Placing reliance on Rule 36 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline & Appeal, Rules, 2006 ('BSNL Rules' for short), learned counsel submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry for imposing of any of the major penalties specified in Rule 33 (B) of the BSNL Rules. Conducting an enquiry is necessary but no such procedure was followed, and as such, imposition of the penalty against the applicant invoking Rule 12 (2) of the Rules is illegal and opposed to law. The medical certificates produced by the applicant ought to have been considered by the respondents. The applicant had served for more than 33 years of unblemished service to the Department which has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, seeks for the reliefs claimed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
1) Babu Verghese and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors1.
2) V.R. Katarki vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.2
3) Sahab Singh (D) Through LRs vs. Director General, RPF, Rail Bhawan and Ors.3
4. Detailed reply statement has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the said reply statement submitted that the applicant was transferred from Srirangapatna to Nagamangala for administrative exigencies in the public interest vide order dated 26.12.2014 and was relieved on 01.01.2015 with instruction to report to the SDE Nagamangala, Mandya SSA and he was transferred against the post of SDE. The applicant did not report for duty at Nagamangala and was not traceable till 26.11.2015. On 26.11.2015, the applicant submitted joining report to SDE, Srirangapatna with medical leave from 02.01.2025 to 24.11.2015 but the same was not accepted as he had already relieved on 01.01.2015 and hence the applicant was advised 1 (1999) 3 SCC 422 2 (1991) Supp (1) SCC 267 3 Civil Appeal No. 13402/2015 (DD: 26.11.2025) KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE to report to SDE, Nagamangala. Instead of doing so, the applicant submitted the joining report along with supporting medical certificate to the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya but did not join for duty, remained continuously absent from duty. On publication of first notice in the local newspaper on 01.03.2016, the applicant submitted a letter to the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya dated 03.03.2016 denying the same, but he did not report for duty. There being no response and the notices and charge sheet served upon the applicant on his last known address being returned with remarks of "addressee absent regularly" by the postal department, the final notice was issued on 25.05.2021 as a last opportunity to appear and defend but the applicant has not appeared before the competent authority even after this notice. Again, another notice was published in the local newspaper on 02.06.2021. In the circumstances, invoking Rule 12 of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order of Deemed Resignation without any retirement benefits to the applicant. On challenge made by the applicant to the said order, the Appellate Authority has upheld the Deemed Resignation order which is in conformity with law. Thus, justifying the action of the respondents, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arise for our consideration is, whether the impugned order issued by the competent authority holding that the applicant is deemed to have resigned from BSNL service with effect from 02.01.2015 and shall not be entitled for any retirement benefits, invoking Rule 12 (2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is justifiable?
7. It is not in dispute that the applicant while working in the cadre of JTO (L/A) was issued with an order of transfer dated 26.12.2014 whereby he was transferred from Srirangapatna to Nagamangala. Accordingly, he was relieved from Srirangapatna on the afternoon of 01.01.2015 with the instruction to report to SDE, Nagamangala but he did not report to duty as directed. The respondents assert that a charge sheet was issued to the applicant for unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 02.01.2015. In response to the notice through local newspaper issued on 01.03.2016, the applicant sent a letter addressed to Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya dated 03.03.2016 stating that as per the newspaper KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE advertisement, he remaining absent unauthorizedly, is totally false and incorrect. Despite submitting such response, the applicant has not turned up for duty. Further notices issued on the applicant's last known address were returned with remarks of "addressee absent regularly". Final notice dated 25.05.2021 issued by the Disciplinary Authority reads thus:
"Final Notice It is observed that, you are absconding/remained unauthorized absent from your duties as TTA/JE in BSNL from 02.01.2015.
You have been given sufficient number of opportunities through notices, to represent yourself to give reason for remaining unauthorized absence from duty for more than 5 years, and to defend yourself why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you.
The efforts are also made by this office in publicizing the notice in local newspaper of your locality, to draw your attention and to give you opportunity to represent yourself before the Disciplinary authority / Administration. But to the surprise of this office, you have neither responded to any of the notice issued earlier nor to the local newspaper publication till date.
The administration has decided to give you final opportunity to represent yourself before the Disciplinary authority, why disciplinary action should not be taken for Absconding/remaining unauthorized absence to duty for more than 5 years from 02-01-2015 till date.
You are hereby instructed to appear before the undersigned within 10 days of receipt of this notice, failing which the Disciplinary action will be taken as per the prevailing rules and Guidelines of BSNL which includes deemed resignation, without extending retirement benefits."
(emphasis supplied) KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The service of the said notice has been categorically admitted by the applicant in the rejoinder stating that the final notice was served to the applicant on 25.05.2021 as a last opportunity to appear and defend himself against the charge framed. Final newspaper notice was published on 02.06.2021. Four notices in addition to two notices through local newspaper on two occasions were issued.
8. Rule 12 (2) of the Rules reads thus:
"12. (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for continuous period exceeding five years. (2) Unless the President, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise determines, a Government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service:
Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to that Government servant before provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked."
9. Based on the said Rules, BSNL has issued instructions vide Circular/Letter dated 03.05.2021. The aforesaid instructions was issued in the background of processing of ratification of penalty proposals received from different circles wherein it was noticed that several of the said cases pertains to employees who are either absconding or not attending office continuously for more than five KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE years without any approved leave and disciplinary proceedings initiated against them also got prolonged for various reasons thereby leading to long delays in its conclusion and its final closure in either way vis-a-vis amendment of Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules vide Notification dated 29.03.2012. The relevant portion of the said instruction reads thus:
"3. Keeping in view the above facts, matter has been examined and with the approval of competent authority it has been decided that as BSNL is following CCS (Leave) Rule 1972 in case of BSNL recruited and absorbed employee both, therefore all cases of BSNL Employees who got absconding/ remains unauthorized absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years shall be dealt as per aforesaid provisions of Rule 12(2) of CCS(Leave) Rules-1972 and they shall be deemed to have resigned from service provided conditions prescribed therein have been fulfilled.
4. Concerned Appointing Authority or any higher authority after giving due notice to such employees, as a part of reasonable opportunity, including publication of public notice in newspapers, in case of no response to the notice within reasonable time, shall take decisions and thereafter also issue order for deemed resignation of employee concerned. Such employee shall not be entitled for any retirement benefits."
10. The main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to issuance of Charge Memo it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings ex-parte but no proceedings under Rule 12 could be invoked, deserves to be negated for the reason that there is no KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE prohibition under Rule 12 to invoke the said provision even after issuance of charge memo. What is mandatorily required to be considered is whether the government servant remained absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, with or without leave. The proviso appended to Rule 12 (2) provides that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to that government servant. Indisputedly, as referred to above, the final notice dated 25.05.2021 issued and served on the applicant as admitted in the rejoinder categorically specifies that the applicant has been instructed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority within 10 days of receipt of the said notice, failing which, the disciplinary action will be taken as per the prevailing rules and guidelines of BSNL which includes deemed resignation without extending retiral benefits. This document would establish compliance of providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant before invoking Rule 12 - deemed resignation without extending retirement benefits. Despite acknowledging the service of the said notice, the applicant has failed to appear before the competent authority within the time specified for appearance but as per Annexure: A13, the applicant made an attempt to appear before the Assistant General Manager (Admin), KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Mysuru with a joining report for duty on 28.06.2021. Again on 29.06.2021 claimed to have met the General Manager, Telecom District, Mysuru, who has refused to take his joining report but by that time the impugned order was passed by the competent authority on 25.06.2021, subsequent to the final notice dated 25.05.2021, after providing reasonable opportunity. It is significant to note that before passing the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 yet another paper publication dated 02.06.2021 was issued. The material on record thus establishes the reasonable opportunity provided to the applicant in terms of Rule 12 (2) and the proviso thereof.
11. The purport of Rule 12 (2) would become redundant if the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant are to be accepted inasmuch as invoking of Rule 12 (2) notwithstanding the Charge Memo already issued. The Circular instructions at Annexure R4 dated 03.05.2021 envisages that the employees who are either absconding or not attending office continuously for more than five years without any approved leave and disciplinary proceedings initiated against them got prolonged for various reasons thereby leading to long delays in its conclusion and its final closure in either way would be dealt as per provisions of Rule 12 (2). This provision KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE curbs the protraction of the disciplinary proceedings used as a tool by the delinquent officials to avoid passing of major penalty order of dismissal which may not be permissible after the retirement.
12. In Babu Verghese and others, supra, the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all, the origin of which is traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor4 has been reiterated. There is no cavil on the said proposition. Indeed, the respondents have followed the said principle by issuing the notice providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant before invoking Rule 12 (2) of the Rules. In V.R. Katarki, supra, the question that fell for consideration was about the justification of the quantum of punishment imposed in a disciplinary action after holding an enquiry.
13. Similarly, in Sahab Singh (D), supra, considering the misconduct proved in the disciplinary enquiry in the background of suppression of the fact of involvement in a criminal case and further 4 (1875) 1 Ch. D 426 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE suppression of arrest and detention which was required to be brought to the notice of the authority under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate, particularly when the appellant had already completed approximately 17 years of service. These judgments relating to quantum of punishment would be of little assistance to the applicant in the present case of invoking Rule 12 of the rules.
14. It is well-settled that courts can come to the rescue of a litigant who is vigilant about his rights and not to a person who sleeps over the matter and raises from slumber according to his convenience. In the circumstances, it is hard to accept the claim of the applicant that he reported to duty on 26.11.2015. The applicant was required to report to duty at the transferred place Nagamangala after he was relieved from Srirangapatna on 01.01.2015 pursuant to the transfer order dated 26.12.2014. On the contrary, the applicant without challenging the said transfer order/relieving order remained unauthorizedly absent. An attempt made by the applicant to submit the joining report at Srirangapatna informing the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya which indeed was not the designated KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore KAVYA SHREE K 2026.02.24 17:56:57+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00689/2024/CAT/BANGALORE reporting place, the same would not validate the unauthorized absence.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, no exception can be found with the impugned order of Deemed Resignation passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 25.06.2021 (Annexure-A10). The Appellate Authority has examined the decision of the Disciplinary Authority scrupulously in rejecting the appeal. Hence, in the circumstances, no fault can be found with the orders impugned.
16. Resultantly, OA lacks merit, and accordingly, stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
KAVYA SHREE K
2026.02.24
17:56:57+05'30'