Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 295 (PNJ)

Gian Chand Aggarwal v. BSNL

2013-03-04

R.P.Nagrath, Surya Kant

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral):- The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandiargh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing his Original Application No. 333-PB of 2010 wherein he sought a direction for his promotion-cum-First Financial Up-gradation w.e.f. 31.12.2005. 2. The petitioner joined the erstwhile Telecom Department as J.T.O. w.e.f. 30.7.1990 and was absorbed in BSNL with effect from 1.10.2000. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in TES Group-B cadre on 31.12.2001. 3. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 29.1.2002, inter alia, alleging that he did not maintain the dearth of cable laid at Bathinda and did not point out the discrepancies made in the attached annexures and he also did not inform his SDOP about the improper laying of the cable by the contractor and, thus,committed mis-conduct in the discharge of his official duty. An enquiry was held and it appears that the Enquiry Officer gave his report somewhere in the year 2006 exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the enquiry report and after following the prescribed procedure imposed punishment of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect, vide its order dated 9.8.2007. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for First Financial Up-gradation on completion of 4 years of service as Sub Divisional Engineer, w.e.f. 31.12.2005, in terms of departmental instructions. The petitioner was, however, granted the above-stated upgradation vide order dated 2.9.2009 but w.e.f. 9.8.2008, after the currency of penalty imposed on him was over. 5. The aggrieved petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Tribunal to seek his upgradation from the due date i.e. 31.12.2005. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 7. It is vehemently contended by his learned counsel that since the petitioner was subsequently exonerated in the enquiry report, he shall be deemed to have committed no mis-conduct as on 31.12.2005, when he became eligible and entitled to the First Financial Upgradation. 8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to agree with the contention, noticed above. 7. It is vehemently contended by his learned counsel that since the petitioner was subsequently exonerated in the enquiry report, he shall be deemed to have committed no mis-conduct as on 31.12.2005, when he became eligible and entitled to the First Financial Upgradation. 8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to agree with the contention, noticed above. We say so, for the reason that as on 31.12.2005, the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , his fate was to be kept in abeyance or in the sealed cover even if it was a case of promotion. The question whether a charge-sheeted employee would be entitled to promotion or not, depends upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. It is well within the power of the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the Enquiry Officer provided that there exist valid reasons. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the enquiry report and imposed minor punishment of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The said order was apparently not challenged by the petitioner and has attained finality. The mis-conduct in relation to which the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 2002, thus, stood proved against him and culminated into a minor punishment. In this view of the matter, the Competent Authority has rightly granted him the First Financial Upgradation from the date immediate after the punishment period was over. 9. For the reasons afore-state, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order by the learned Tribunal. 10. Dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------