Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1290 (GUJ)

Nalinkant v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

2016-07-11

A.S.SUPEHIA, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the " learned Tribunal") in Original Application No. 276 of 2010, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said OA and has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after having held the charge/misconduct proved against the petitioner, the petitioner-original applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10767 of 2015. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in Original Application No. 210 of 2010, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said OA and has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after having held the charge/misconduct proved against the petitioner, the petitioner-original applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10770 of 2015. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 03.09.2014 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the " learned Tribunal") in Original Application No. 355 of 2012 and the order dated 5.1.2015 in Review Application No. 32 of 2014, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said OA and has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after having held the charge/misconduct proved against the petitioner, the petitioner-original applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No. 17644 of 2015. Special Civil Application No. 10767 of 2015 3. A Charge Memo dated 25.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, while functioning as JTO (O/D), West, Surendranagar, during the period from 17.04.2002 to 31.05.2004 deliberately, with mala fide intention, certified bill Nos. 14 and 15 amounting to Rs. 12,50,708/- of M/s. Shree Hari Construction, Surendranagar, without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bills, with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface, RCC protection with weld mesh, Road crossing and erection of External DPs. 14 and 15 amounting to Rs. 12,50,708/- of M/s. Shree Hari Construction, Surendranagar, without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bills, with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface, RCC protection with weld mesh, Road crossing and erection of External DPs. On actual verification of the works by the Committee appointed by the GMTD, Surendranagar, it was observed that there was much deviation in the claims and based on their actual verification, the claims were subsequently restricted to Rs. 1,30,008/-, against the actual claim of Rs. 12,50,708/-. Thus, the petitioner committed grave misconduct amounting to unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. 3.1 An Inquiry Officer was appointed for holding the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Vide inquiry report dated 12.10.2007, the Inquiry Officer held that the mala fide intention of the petitioner is "Not Proved". Part-B of the charges about the incorrect assessment pertaining to claims was proved and it was observed by the Inquiry Officer that had the re-verification of works not taken, the department would have incurred a loss of Rs. 11,20,700/-. On conclusion, the Inquiry Officer has partially proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. 3.2 The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 18.01.2008 calling upon him to offer his response on the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 11.02.2008. After due consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.02.2009 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected vide order dated 09.03.2010. Both the aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 276/10 before the learned Tribunal. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 15.12.2014 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 276 of 2010, the original applicant- petitioner herein has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10767 of 2015. Special Civil Application No. 17644 of 2015 4. 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 276 of 2010, the original applicant- petitioner herein has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10767 of 2015. Special Civil Application No. 17644 of 2015 4. A Charge Memo dated 18.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, while functioning as SDEP,(East) Surendranagar, during the period from June, 2003 to May, 2004, deliberately, with mala fide intention, certified bill No. 13 amounting to Rs. 6,15,714/- of M/s. Shree Hari Construction, Surendranagar, without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bill, with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface, RCC protection with weld mesh, Road crossing and erection of External DPs. On actual verification of the works by the Committee appointed by the GMTD, Surendranagar, it was observed that there was much deviation in the claims and based on their actual verification, the claims were subsequently restricted to Rs. 1,29,467/-, against the actual claim of Rs. 6,15,714/-. Thus, the petitioner committed grave misconduct amounting to unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. 4.1 An Inquiry Officer was appointed for holding the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Vide inquiry report dated 31.10.2007, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as fully proved. 4.2 The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 25.02.2008 calling upon him to offer his response on the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 10.03.2008. After due consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24/25.03.2010 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected vide order dated 13.07.2011. Both the aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 355/12 before the learned Tribunal. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.09.2014 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Application No. 32/2014 which was also dismissed vide Order dated 05.01.2015. Both the aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 355/12 before the learned Tribunal. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.09.2014 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Application No. 32/2014 which was also dismissed vide Order dated 05.01.2015. 4.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 03.09.2014 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 355 of 2012 and the order dated 5.1.2015 in Review Application No. 32 of 2014, the petitioner- original applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No. 17644 of 2015. Special Civil Application No. 10770 of 2015 5. A Charge Memo dated 25.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, while functioning as JTO (O/D), East, Surendranagar, during the period from 07.07.2002 to 31.05.2004 deliberately with mala fide intention, certified bill No. 13 amounting to Rs. 6,15,714/- of M/s. Shree Hari Construction, Surendranagar, without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bill, with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface, RCC protection with weld mesh, Road crossing and erection of External DPs. On actual verification of the works by the Committee appointed by the GMTD, Surendranagar, it was observed that there was much deviation in the claims and based on their actual verification, the claims were subsequently restricted to Rs. 1,29,467,/-, against the actual claim of Rs. 6,15,714/-. Thus, the petitioner committed grave misconduct amounting to unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. 5.1 An Inquiry Officer was appointed for holding the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Vide inquiry report dated 10.10.2007, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as "Fully Proved". The Inquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner deliberately processed the very huge amount of bill with mala fide intention. 5.2 The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report and a copy thereof was furnished to the petitioner calling upon him to offer his response on the same. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 06.02.2008. After due consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.02.2009 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2010. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 06.02.2008. After due consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.02.2009 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2010. Both the aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 210/11 before the learned Tribunal. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 06.01.2015 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. 5.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 delivered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 210 of 2010, the petitioner- original applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10770 of 2015. 6. Shri Gogia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original applicant- petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos. 10767 of 2015 and 10770 of 2015 and Shri V.S. Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original applicant- petitioner herein in Special Civil Application No. 17644 of 2015. Shri V.C. Master, learned advocate and Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the department in respective petitions. 7. Learned advocates for the respective original applicants-petitioners have vehemently submitted that in the present case the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the original applications and confirming the penalty orders passed by the disciplinary authority. It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocates for the respective original applicants - petitioners herein that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that as such the respective applicants who were subordinate to one Shri Ashish Pathak acted at the behest of their superior Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that so far as Shri Ashish Pathak is concerned, he has been imposed punishment of reduction by two stages for two years having effect of postponing the future increments only, whereas the petitioners are compulsorily retired. 7.1 It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respective petitioners that as such the respective petitioners were the signatory to the bills at the behest of the their superior Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that immediately thereafter they reported to the higher authority that they were compelled/forced to sign the bills by Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that immediately thereafter they reported to the higher authority that they were compelled/forced to sign the bills by Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that as such Shri Ashish Pathak who at the relevant time was working as DGM(T) can be said to be a main culprit, however he has been imposed lesser punishment/penalty of reduction by two stages for years with future effect only. 7.2 It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have interfered with the order of penalty imposed against petitioner of compulsory retirement on the ground that for the same misconduct, different employees are imposed different penalties. 7.3 It is submitted that even otherwise the learned Tribunal ought to have interfered with the impugned order of penalty of compulsorily retirement on the ground that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charge and misconduct proved against the respective petitioners. 7.4 It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respective petitioners - original applicants that in the present case another co- delinquents viz. Mr. N.J. Padihiyar, having same designation to the petitioner, was imposed 10% cut in pension for a period of five years vide order dated 31.12.2012, which is a lesser punishment as compared to the petitioner. She has further stated that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the aforesaid aspects in true perspective. Learned advocates for the petitioners have further submitted that the preliminary inquiry report by CVC is prepared behind the back of the petitioner, and the same is not supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, the said action on the part of the disciplinary authority will vitiate the departmental proceedings. It is submitted that therefore, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned orders of compulsory retirement are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7.5 It is submitted that as such by imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, it has led to the loss of services of the remaining service of the respective petitioners. It is submitted that therefore, order of compulsory retirement is too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. 7.6 Learned advocates for the respective petitioners have also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 with respect to selective punishment. It is submitted that therefore, order of compulsory retirement is too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. 7.6 Learned advocates for the respective petitioners have also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 with respect to selective punishment. It is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, all the employees are required to be treated equally. 7.7 It is further submitted by Shri Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner- original applicant that in the present case even the disciplinary proceedings could have been against the aforesaid Shri Ashish Pathak by BSNL, as he was serving with the BSNL. Making above submissions, it is requested to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently the order of penalty of compulsory retirement passed against the respective petitioners. 8. All these petitions are opposed by Shri P.C. Master, learned advocate and Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate for the department in respective petitions. Learned advocates for the respondent authority have supported the respective judgment and orders passed by the learned Tribunal and have submitted that no interference of this Court is called for as the learned Tribunal has extensively dealt with the issues raised before it. 8.1 It is further submitted by learned advocates for respondent department that as such and in the facts and circumstances of the case and having found that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and thereafter when the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is requested to dismissed the present petitions. 8.2 Learned advocates for the respondent department have further submitted that as such respective petitioners are as such not denied the retirement benefits. It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the misconduct proved against the respective petitioners and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer agreed by the Disciplinary Authority, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of compulsory retirement can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. 8.3 It is further submitted that as such it is not proved in the departmental inquiry that the petitioners in fact, acted under undue pressure or coercion of their senior Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that as such Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report has recorded the statement made by Shri J.R. Armo, the then DGM(F) that no officer met him on 31.03.2004 in connection with stopping the payment on the ground that the bill was certified erroneously under the influence of Shri Ashish Pathak. 8.4 It is submitted that as such in the departmental inquiry it has been specifically proved that the respective petitioners failed to perform their duty honestly and that they certified the bills without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bills with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface; RCC protection with weld mesh; Road crossing and erection of External Dps. It is submitted that in case of two bill amounting to Rs. 12,50,708/- after actual verification, the claims were subsequently restricted to 1,30,008/-. It is submitted that therefore, if the re-verification of the works were not taken place and the payments were released to the contractor on the basis of the work certification given by the respective petitioners, department would have incurred huge loss. 8.5 It is submitted that as such no discriminatory treatment have been given to any of the employees. It is submitted that out of total 16 official/officers involved, looking to their status and the responsibility and liability and their position, penalties have been imposed. It is submitted that out of aforesaid 16 total officers involved, seven officers were JTO/SDE cadre (like petitioners) who were as such absorbed and working with BSNL, have been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement considering the gravity of the charges established. It is submitted that all of these 7 officers who were working in field were prima facie responsible for execution of the work and certifying the claims of the contractor. It is submitted that out of the 7 JTO/SDE one Shri Padhiyar who by the time retired on attaining the age of superannuation was imposed punishment of 10% cut in provisional pension for five years. It is submitted that he has retired during the process of inquiry. It is further submitted that with respect to rest of JTO/SDE, they are imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that he has retired during the process of inquiry. It is further submitted that with respect to rest of JTO/SDE, they are imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the order of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioners is discriminatory and/or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8.6 It is submitted that out of the 16 officers two were DEs responsible for the alleged irregularity. However, during the process of the departmental proceedings, both the officers retired from the service and accordingly, the competent authority, considering the gravity of the charges, imposed the penalty of 30%/25% cut in pension for a period 5 years on these retired DEs. 8.7 It is further submitted that rest of the five officers are imposed different punishment of reduction of pay by various stages considering their degree of responsibility. 8.8 Now, so far as contention on behalf of the respective petitioners that Shri Ashish Pathak a Superior Officer has been imposed the lesser punishment is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the department that as such Disciplinary Authority in both the cases were different. It is submitted that so far as Shri Ashish Pathak is concerned, as he was employee of department of Telecommunication, Disciplinary Authority was DOT and order of penalty was imposed by the UPSC. It is submitted that even the punishment imposed upon Shri Ashish Pathak was subsequent to the punishment/penalty imposed upon the petitioners and other officers. It is submitted that therefore, when the penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, in the present case no order of penalty was passed against Shri Ashish Pathak. It is submitted that therefore, the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioners cannot be said to be discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8.9 It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respondent authority that as such BSNL could not have initiated the departmental inquiry against Shri Pathak as he was not the employee of the BSNL. It is submitted that therefore, the submission of Shri Gogia, learned advocate for some of the petitioners that BSNL could have initiated the departmental inquiry against Shri Ashish Pathak by the BSNL cannot be accepted. It is submitted that therefore, the submission of Shri Gogia, learned advocate for some of the petitioners that BSNL could have initiated the departmental inquiry against Shri Ashish Pathak by the BSNL cannot be accepted. 8.10 Now, so far as submission of Shrir Gogia, learned advocate for some of the petitioners that respective petitioners were not served with the preliminary inquiry report by the Vigilance Commission and therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings have been initiated is concerned, it is submitted that on the basis of the preliminary report by the Vigilance Commission thereafter a full-fledged departmental inquiry was initiated against the respective petitioners and in the inquiry respective petitioners were given fullest opportunity to defend themselves. It is submitted that thereafter the material which was relied upon during the departmental inquiry, the copies of the same were supplied to the respective delinquents- petitioners. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petitions. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have considered the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that after full-fledged departmental inquiry and having held the charge/misconduct of certifying the bills No. 14 and 15 amounting to Rs. 12,50,708/- claimed by one M/s. Shree Hari Construction, Surendranagar without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bills, with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface; RCC protection with weld mesh; Road crossing and erection of External Dps, the respective petitioners who at the relevant time were serving as JTO/SDE have been imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and by impugned judgment and order by the learned Tribunal. 9.2 It is the contention on behalf of the respective petitioners that firstly they acted at the behest of their superior Shri Ashish Pathak and that they signed and certified the respective bills at the behest of Shri Ashish Pathak, who has been imposed the lesser punishment. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that immediately they went to the higher officer and informed the higher officer that they were compelled to sign/certify the bills at the behest of Shri Ashish Pathak - their superior and because of that the payment was not made and the exaggerated amount was saved. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that immediately they went to the higher officer and informed the higher officer that they were compelled to sign/certify the bills at the behest of Shri Ashish Pathak - their superior and because of that the payment was not made and the exaggerated amount was saved. 9.3 However, it is required to be noted that the respective petitioners have failed to prove that immediately thereafter they approached the higher officer and told them that they certified/signed the respective bills (which are as such exaggerated claim) under the coercion and/or pressure of Shri Ashish Pathak. It is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in fact it was the duty cast upon the respective petitioners who were serving as JTO and who were serving on the field to inspect and for measurement and see the site before certifying the bills. It appears that on re-verification of the claims/works by the Committee appointed, it was observed that there is much deviation in the claims and based on their actual verification, the claims were subsequently restricted to Rs. 1,30,008/-, against the actual claim of Rs. 12,50,708/-. Thus, if re-verification were not taken place and payments were made on the basis of certificate given by the petitioners, the department would have incurred the loss of Rs. 11,20,700/-. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority committed any error and/or acted arbitrarily in imposing penalty of compulsory retirement. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, order of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioners, cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct held to be proved. Under the circumstances, as such learned Tribunal has rightly refused to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 10. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not given the copy of the preliminary report of Vigilance Department and therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings have been initiated is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. It is required to be noted that as such on the basis of the preliminary report submitted by the Vigilance Department, further full-fledged departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioners and other officers. It is required to be noted that as such on the basis of the preliminary report submitted by the Vigilance Department, further full-fledged departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioners and other officers. The respective petitioners have been given fullest opportunity by the Inquiry Officer and all the materials which were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority have been furnished to them. At this stage, it is required to be that on one hand it is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that they certified bills which as such were exaggerated clams at the behest of their superior Shri Ashish Pathak. 11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respective petitioners that different punishment have been imposed against the different persons and even in the case of Shri N.J. Padhiyar who was also working as JTO like the petitioners has been imposed penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of five years which is lesser punishment as compared to the petitioners and therefore, according to the petitioners the order of compulsory retirement imposed against them is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, it is required to be noted that out of the 16 Officers/Officials involved in the scam, 15 officers/officials were BSNL employees. Out of 16 officers/officials, 8 officers were in the cadre of JTO/SDE (including the petitioners herein). Out of 8 officers of JTO/SDE, 7 such officers are compulsorily retired. However, one JTO Shri Padhiyar retired during the process of inquiry and therefore, he was imposed the punishment of 10% cut in the pension for five years. Therefore, at the time when the Disciplinary Authority passed an order he was not in service as he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, there was no question of passing any order of compulsory retirement against him. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any discriminatory treatment given to the respective petitioners as alleged. It appears that other persons who were working in the other lower post have been imposed different punishment looking to their responsibility in process of claims bills of the contractor at various stages. As observed herein above, all the 7 officers/JTO/SDE cadre having same responsibility have been imposed the order of compulsory retirement. 12. It appears that other persons who were working in the other lower post have been imposed different punishment looking to their responsibility in process of claims bills of the contractor at various stages. As observed herein above, all the 7 officers/JTO/SDE cadre having same responsibility have been imposed the order of compulsory retirement. 12. Now, submission on behalf of the respective petitioners that punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioners can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved inasmuch as their superior Shri Ashish Pathak has been imposed lesser punishment is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such order of punishment/penalty imposed against the petitioners is much prior to penalty imposed against Shri Ashish Pathak. It is required to be noted that the Disciplinary Authority in both cases are different. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that BSNL also could have initiated/held the departmental inquiry against the aforesaid Shri Ashish Pathak is concerned, it is required to be noted that BSNL could not have held the departmental inquiry against Shri Pathak as he was not employee of BSNL and he was employee of DOT and he was on deputation at BSNL. Therefore, when in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of compulsory retirement against the petitioners, no order of penalty was passed against Shri Ashish Pathak by his Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, when the Disciplinary Authority passed the order in the present case, it cannot be said that the same was discriminatory and/or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As such looking to the misconduct proved against the respective petitioners having certified the bills, without verifying the correctness of the works claimed in the said bills with respect to quantity of digging trench in rocky strata surface; RCC protection with weld mesh; Road crossing and erection of External Dps and thereafter when all of them are ordered to be compulsory retired, it cannot be said that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct held to be proved. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respective petitioners are not denied any retirement benefits on imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on them (as submitted by the learned advocates for the respondent department). 13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respective petitioners are not denied any retirement benefits on imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on them (as submitted by the learned advocates for the respondent department). 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing respective original applications and refusing to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal by dismissing the respective original applications. No interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions fail and same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged in each of the petitions. No costs.