C. Lalu Vs. Assistantant General Manager(C), B.S.N.L., Office of Gm, Td, Kollam and Others - Court Judgment

HON'BLE SHRI K.GEORGE JOSEPH, MEMBER (A):

The applicant was charge sheeted for misuse of SE DOT telephone sanctioned to him by shifting the same without permission to the residence of a person not related to him for a consideration and again shifting the same to another location for a second time without permission. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the applicant has been proved. The Disciplinary Authority withheld one increment of the applicant for one year without future effect. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Hence this T.A.

2. The applicant's contention is that the enquiry against him is vitiated by contradictions and procedural shortcomings.

3. In the charge sheet it was stated that the applicant had received an amount of Rs.1500/- from Sri John Mathias. But the Enquiry Officer found that he had received Rs.3,000/- from Sri John Mathias. The Enquiry Officer did not permit the applicant to cross-examine the defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer sought to elicit evidence by questioning the applicant instead of explaining the evidence appearing against him. The Disciplinary Authority did not mention whether it agrees or disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or about the quantum of tentative penalty. What the Enquiry Officer held as proved by stating that the applicant received Rs.3000/- is a new charge.

4. The respondents contested the T.A. It was submitted that the applicant has not exhausted the remedy of preferring a review/revision petition before the third respondent. There is no procedural lapse in the enquiry . There is no need to state the agreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the finding of the Enquiry Officer while forwarding a copy of the enquiry report under Rule 15(2) of CCS(CCA)Rules. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation will decide the quantum of punishment. Therefore there was no need to inform the applicant about the proposed punishment. The applicant was awarded a minor penalty only. There was no denial of natural justice to the applicant. The applicant had failed to maintain integrity and acted in a way unbecoming of an B.S.N.L employee. The findings of the Inquiring Authority, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are based on evidences in accordance with the rules. The main charge against the applicant was that he had misused SE DOT telephone sanctioned to him by shifting the same to the premises of other persons not related to him and violated the rules on the subject and the conduct rules. The applicant did not bother to inform the change of address for shifting the telephone to his controlling officer. The applicant had summoned the defence witnesses for the purpose of identifying the statements recorded by them. Therefore the Inquiring Authority restricted the applicant to that point alone while examining the defence witnesses since investigation reports were not listed and were confidential. Therefore there is no denial of natural justice to the applicant. The Inquiring Authority had generally questioned the charged official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. Therefore the grounds of the T.A. are not tenable.

5. Arguments were heard and documents perused.

6. The main charge against the applicant is the misuse of the telephone sanctioned to him by shifting it to unauthorized premises . If the intentions of the applicant in shifting the telephone were honorable it would have been done with proper permission. When it is done without authorization it is reasonable to conclude that it was done to make money. True there is a contradiction in the charge sheet and the finding of the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as the charge sheet alleges that the applicant received Rs.1500/- for shifting the telephone unauthorizedly to the premises of Sri John Mathias whereas the Enquiry Officer found the amount received is Rs.3000/-. This contradiction in amount received does not reduce the gravity of the misconduct of the applicant. Whether the amount received is Rs.1500/-or Rs.3000/-it is proved that the applicant failed to maintain integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.

7. The investigation reports were confidential and they were not allowed to be relied upon for the purpose of cross-examining the defence witnesses who were summoned by the applicant only for the purpose of identifying the statements recorded by them. If the applicant had to drop the defence witnesses called by him he has to blame only himself. The Enquiry Officer's conduct cannot be held to be biased against the applicant. Moreover the applicant had not alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings. A perusal of the enquiry records show that the Inquiring Authority had only generally questioned the applicant on the evidence against him. This exercise on the part of the Inquiring Authority cannot be termed as cross-examination. Rule 15(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules reads:

"(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant."

A copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with the Disciplinary Authority's tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, should be forwarded to the charged official. If there is no disagreement it is not mandatory to give the reasons for agreement with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. As per latest version of the CCS(CCA) Rules, the tentative penalty is not required to be mentioned while forwarding the report of the Inquiring Authority.

8. It is seen from the averment of the respondents that the applicant had not exhausted the remedy of preferring a review/ revision petition before the third respondent. This is not contested by the applicant. Therefore the applicant has approached this Tribunal prematurely.

9. In view of the above discussion, the T.A. being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

10. The T.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.