Judgment:
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent of the counsel for parties, these petitions were heard finally.
2. There is one writ petitioner common to all these proceedings. He impugns the decision of the respondent the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'MTNL') to initiate departmental proceedings under MTNL(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1998 Rules')
3. The facts pertaining to these case are not in controversy. The petitioner joined the services of the Indian Post and Telegraph Department in the year 1967. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Group B). With the bifurcation of the department, the petitioner was sent to the Department of Telecommunications. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to MTNL. For a brief while he worked with the Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., a Central Government Organization.
4. While he was employed in the D.O.T, petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer in 1996 and was posted at Gohawti. On 13.10.98, after corporatisation of MTNL, the petitioner's services were placed on deputation with it; he was transferred to New Delhi. He continued working there and by an order issued in the year 2004, his services were absorbed with effect from 1.10.2000 by MTNL.
5. MTNL, by various orders issued on different dates in each of the proceedings separately, decided to initiate departmental proceedings inter alias on allegations of mis-conduct. It issued charge sheet in terms of Rules 25 and/or 27 of the 1998 Rules. The dates on which charge sheet were issued relative to the different petitions, are indicated below:-
WPC No. 20706/200530.10.2004
WPC No. 3790/200613 3790/200613 .2.2006
WPC No. 3791/20068.2.2006
WPC No. 152/200630.10.2004
WPC No. 3235/200531.10.2004
6. It is urged on behalf of petitioner by Mr. Chaudhry Learned counsel that the incidents complained against pertain to the periods when the petitioner was in the employment of DOT namely in 1996/1997. At that time he was working in Guwahati. The legality of the charge sheets is thereforee, attacked on four distinct grounds. Firstly, that the charges pertain to a period prior to the formulation of the Rules which came into force in 1998; secondly that after the absorption of the petitioner with MTNL, it could exercise disciplinary control only in respect of acts of omission and commission, committed by him after absorption namely with effect from 1.10.2000. A equator to this submission is that in case of previous actions, the only competent authority if at all, would be the Central Government i.e the DOT and not MTNL. The third ground urged was that MTNL could not in any event initiate proceedings because its jurisdiction is confined territorially to Delhi and Mumbai. The counsel submitted that the period when the petitioner was working admittedly at Guwahati, pertains to acts of misconduct. Learned counsel, in addition, urged that the reliance placed by MTNL upon Rule 5 (43) is misplaced since there is no material to the effect that the Central Government, (the previous employer) had referred the issue of misconduct for investigation and departmental proceedings.
7. The position taken taken by MTNL is that after its corporatisation and the petitioner's services having been placed with it, it took control of all the aspects relating to his services including the previous service. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that although at the time when the petitioner was absorbed, a certificate had been issued to the DOT that no disciplinary proceedings were pending, nevertheless that did not fetter the MTNL from exercising inherent disciplinary courted to deal with acts of misconduct. He relied upon Rule 5 (43) to say that such acts of past misconduct would also fall within the exclusive domain of MTNL and DOT does not have jurisdiction over such issues.
8. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that territorial jurisdiction of MTNL or lack of it does not in any way hamper its power to exercise disciplinary control and initiate departmental proceedings if there are serious allegations which are warrant investigation and appropriate remedy or action.
9. The Rule in question namely Rule 5(43) relied upon in these proceedings reads as follows:-
Rule 5 (43) Any misconduct committed by an employee in previous organization and if the organization refer the case to MTNL, it will be taken cognizance of and disciplinary action will be taken inspire of the clearance given by that organization at the time of his/her resignation or relieving. It may also be ensured that the previous organization where the misconduct has been committed by an employee, lends all cooperation to MTNL in this regard.
10. The admitted facts of these cases are that the petitioner's services stood absorbed with MTNL with effect from 1.10.2000. The allegations of misconduct pertain to a period when he worked at Guwahati. However as on date as also on the date when the charge sheet was issued, the jural relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the DOT had ended. The petitioner has not disputed that the absorption was validly made with effect from 1.10.2000; equally he has not challenged the provisions of Rule 5(43). In the absence of such a challenge, in my opinion, the submission by the petitioner that MTNL does not have any jurisdiction to issue show cause notice or initiate departmental proceedings is devoid of merit.
11. On the submission of the petitioner that MTNL could not have dealt with the acts of omission and commission which took place prior to its incorporation in relation to employment rendered while the petitioner was in the services of DOT, there can be no dispute about the fact that the entire contract of service in relation to the petitioner were taken over by the respondent MTNL as on the date of his absorption. In the absence of any Rule empowering the Central Government to exercise control over the services of the petitioner in relation to matters of employment for the period he served with it, the only authority which would continue to have jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings would be MTNL. Any other interpretation would lead to incongruity, because inevitably it would result in dual disciplinary control a situation deleterious to public interest and at the same time leading to avoidable conflict.
12. As far as the question of operational jurisdiction of MTNL is concerned, the question has to be seen from the stand point of prejudice. It has been held in several decisions of the Supreme Court including the one reported as S.K. Sharma v. Union of India 1996 SC that principles of natural justice or indeed norms evolved in the conduct of departmental proceedings have to be seen guidelines or norms indicative of fairness. Whenever objections as to propriety or legality of disciplinary proceedings are raised, Courts cannot blindly hold that infraction of one or the other Rule by itself would render the entire proceeding void or a nullity. The Courts have to see issue from the stand point of prejudice. If one views the argument about lack of territorial jurisdiction of MTNL, as also the other submissions of the petitioner, it would be immediately apparent that no prejudice has been indicated to the Court, as the MTNL does not operate in Guwahati and in other regions except Delhi and Mumbai. Equally, the contentions raised that no reference was received by MTNL from the DOT, too have to be seen from the stand point of prejudice. The provisions of Rule 5(43) have to be seen as indicative of a power. In that sense the provision has to be given widest amplitude and the question of reference or lack of it would be only procedural, that cannot equated to a legal requirement. The fact that an alleged misconduct was noticed subsequently by MTNL itself is indicative of some inter se correspondence or communication between MTNL and the DOT.
13. Inherent in the very nature of departmental proceedings, is the requirement of the employer having to prove and establish charges in accordance with law. thereforee, whether the corporation elicited and was granted information by the government is a matter that has to be satisfied by MTNL in the proceedings.
14. In view of the above findings, no relief can be granted in these proceedings. However having regard to the fact that misconduct alleged pertains to a period, going back to about a decade, it would be in the interest of parties that the departmental proceedings are completed at the earliest, preferably within one year.
15. The writ petitions are dismissed subject to the above directions.