Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 144 (JHR)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Shyam Bihari

2018-01-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi proceeded to quash the charge memo dated 29.12.2016 issued against the applicants-respondents herein by the impugned order dated 1st August, 2017 (Annexure-7) which has aggrieved the respondent-petitioner herein Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to approach this Court in the present writ petition. 3. We feel appropriate to refer to the articles of charge contained in Memorandum dated 29th December, 2016 (Annexure-5) hereinbelow; (i) Article-I: Shri Shyam Bihari RM who was engaged as temporary status Mazdoor on the basis of working as casual labourer during the period 1988 to March 1996 as stated in the records have been found to be fake at a later stage. This work experience for a period of 2430 days was adduced with ill motive to defraud the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, which amounts to an acts of moral turpitude by way of dishonesty, cheating, fraud, forgery and prejudicial to the interest of the company. It amounts to gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and having acted in a manner which is also unbecoming for a government servant, such act is in violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (ii) Article-II: Shyam Bihari RM acquired appointment as TSM and got regularized as Regular Mazdoor in BSNL on the basis of a work experience certificate which was found to be fake. The instant acts also amounted gross misconduct and violation of the aforesaid CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. Similar charge-sheet has been issued in respect of the other private respondents as well. 4. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal proceeded to quash the charge sheet on the ground of inordinate delay and as a misuse of power and function entrusted to the competent authority. Petitioner herein has assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal and defended their impugned action, inter alia, on the following grounds; (i) The acts of the respondents herein by which they induced the employer to engage them as temporary status Mazdoor was vitiated by fraud on account of suppression of material facts relating to their work experience. (ii) A detailed preliminary inquiry undertaken in the year 2016 which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition dated 22nd August, 2016 exposed the acts of fraud perpetrated by the respondent in entering into the service. (ii) A detailed preliminary inquiry undertaken in the year 2016 which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition dated 22nd August, 2016 exposed the acts of fraud perpetrated by the respondent in entering into the service. Fraud vitiates the foundation of all acts, therefore, when the fraud was discovered, the initiation of the departmental proceeding through charge-sheet dated 29th December, 2016 cannot be said to be suffering from inordinate delay. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others V. M. Bhaskaran reported in (1995) Supp. (4) SCC 100, Devendra Kumar V. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 and in the case of Avtar Singh V. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , in support of his contention. (iii) The learned Central Administrative Tribunal on two occasions, first by order dated 29th November, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 144 of 1999 and on the subsequent occasion on 24th March, 2015 order passed in O.A. No. 157 of 2013 granted liberty to the BSNL to undertake such an inquiry. The learned Tribunal on initiation of such inquiry on the basis of a definite preliminary report should not have quashed the charge-sheet on the ground of inordinate delay. The impugned orders are therefore, bad in law. The respondents should face the disciplinary inquiry and defend themselves so that the truth comes out. 5. Respondents have seriously contested the claim. According to learned counsel representing them, there is no justification for the inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceeding nor are there any substance in the merit of the allegations to justify it. Reference is made to the initial appointment of these applicants on 9.3.1998 as temporary status mazdoor by order at Annexure 1 issued by the Telecom District Engineer, Dumka. Applicants-respondents also placed strong reliance upon the order dated 29th November, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 144 of 1999 (Annexure A/3 at page 67 to their counter-affidavit). By the instant order the learned Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed the order dated 20th January, 1999 passed by the District Engineer Telecom, Dumka wherein the temporary status granted to the applicant had been kept in abeyance. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to re-engage them as temporary status mazdoor on the same terms and conditions. By the instant order the learned Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed the order dated 20th January, 1999 passed by the District Engineer Telecom, Dumka wherein the temporary status granted to the applicant had been kept in abeyance. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to re-engage them as temporary status mazdoor on the same terms and conditions. The respondents were at the same time granted liberty to inquire into the allegation of submitting forged certificates by the applicants giving them appropriate opportunity to participate in the inquiry and to take appropriate action in the light of inquiry report in accordance with law. Not only were the respondents reinstated in service by order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure-A/6) but they were also regularized by virtue of the decision taken in the Departmental Committee meeting held on 30th April, 2002 (Annexure-A/7) as regular mazdoor. The decision to regularize them was taken after submission of the original work diary by these employees on 16th January, 2002 in response to the letter dated 7th January, 2002 of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Dumka (Annexure-A/4 and A/5 respectively). The regularization of these employees are admitted by the BSNL as per averments made at para 13 of the writ petition also. The order of regularization was issued consequent to the departmental promotion committee meeting and is dated 11th July, 2002 (Annexure A/8). The issue relating to their appointment on the basis of fake certificates were duly inquired by a committee comprising of Telecom District Managers, Dumka and Divisional Engineers (Phones) Deoghar and Divisional Engineer (A & P) Office of TDM Dumka in view of the liberty granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 144 of 1999 and as per the letter No. Legal/JKD-2001/DMK, Ranchi dated 31.12.2001 issued by the Chief General Manager, Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi. The said report is dated 12.7.2002 Annexure A/9. As per the report, the Inquiry Committee rendered a categorical finding that the appointment of 12 TSMs cannot be categorized as false appointment. The respondents also have brought on record letter dated 15th February, 2006 issued by the Telecom District Manager, Dumka addressed to the AGM (Admn.) Office of the C.G.M.T., JKD Telecom Circle Ranchi (Annexure-A/12) wherein on verbal and telephonic instruction of G.M. (O) and CGMT Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi further inquiry by another committee had been stopped. The respondents also have brought on record letter dated 15th February, 2006 issued by the Telecom District Manager, Dumka addressed to the AGM (Admn.) Office of the C.G.M.T., JKD Telecom Circle Ranchi (Annexure-A/12) wherein on verbal and telephonic instruction of G.M. (O) and CGMT Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi further inquiry by another committee had been stopped. This committee had been constituted by the direction of the CGMT, Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi through letter dated 22nd August, 2005 and a preliminary inquiry had already been conducted. However, no action was taken pursuant to the said inquiry. Apart from that, the matter was inquired by the Central Bureau of Investigation also which finally returned the file on 10th August, 2010 vide Annexure R-7 page 207 of the counter-affidavit with a self contained note against the officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dumka for perusal and taking necessary action as deemed fit at the end of the Chief Vigilance Officer, BSNL, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It further observed that if any criminality is found they may refer back to Central Bureau of Investigation for taking necessary action. The report of the C.B.I. also at the end, takes note of the verbal and telephonic instruction of GM(O) and CGMT Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi wherein further inquiry into the alleged submission of forged certificates for regular conferment of TSMs was stopped. No further communication were received from the office of CGMT, Ranchi in the office of TDM, Dumka, as per the available records. 6. It is further stated on behalf of respondents that in the year 2013, the employees/present respondents had to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 157 of 2013 and other original applications (as also referred to in para 13 of their counter affidavit) for seeking promotion as allegedly juniors were promoted from their cadre. The learned Tribunal by order dated 24th March, 2015 Annexure-A/13 at page 104 of their counter-affidavit, granted the reliefs prayed for and directed the respondents to take appropriate consequential action within a period of three months. However, the Tribunal, even after taking note of the plea of B.S.N.L. that the temporary status was granted to these applicants though they had never actually worked as Mazdoor and that their claim was based on fake certificates, refrained from making any further comments on the sorry state of investigative efforts undertaken by the respondents. However, the Tribunal, even after taking note of the plea of B.S.N.L. that the temporary status was granted to these applicants though they had never actually worked as Mazdoor and that their claim was based on fake certificates, refrained from making any further comments on the sorry state of investigative efforts undertaken by the respondents. By way of passing observations, it further observed that if the respondents choose to continue with these efforts and reach a conclusion if ever, they will be at liberty to take such consequential action as may be justifiable within applicable rules/guidelines. At this stage and till they do so, they cannot hold the future of the applicants to ransom indefinitely. 7. The BSNL in fact chose to terminate them from service on 9th June, 2015. This was however, put in abeyance by Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna in O.A. No. 430 of 2015. Challenge thereto by the BSNL before the Patna High Court in a writ petition was also dismissed on 27.8.2015. The respondent-BSNL authorities have thereafter in a motivated manner undertaken preliminary inquiry behind the back of the applicants/respondents herein which has been made basis for issuance of the charge sheet and initiation of the departmental proceeding against them. The learned Tribunal was therefore justified in quashing the charge sheet on the grounds of misuse of power by the competent authorities and inordinate delay. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal need not be interfered in exercise of the powers of judicial review by this Court if, there are no serious errors of law. The scope of interference by this Court in a challenge arising out of orders of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal have been well delineated in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 para 79. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of P.B. Mahadevan Vs. M.D.T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and other judgments on the point of quashing of a charge sheet. This Court, therefore, should refuse to interfere in judicious findings of the learned Tribunal in the background of the entire facts and circumstances of the case pleaded before it. M.D.T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and other judgments on the point of quashing of a charge sheet. This Court, therefore, should refuse to interfere in judicious findings of the learned Tribunal in the background of the entire facts and circumstances of the case pleaded before it. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioners herein being the B.S.N.L. are also guilty of suppression of material facts as the entire documents produced before the learned Tribunal had deliberately not been brought on record in the present writ petition. The respondents have however brought entire documents on record through their counter-affidavit. Moreover, the inquiry report of August, 2016 which had been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition had also not been brought before the learned Tribunal in support of their action. Therefore, reliance upon such additional materials at this stage should not be encouraged in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Anr. reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 at para 17. 9. We have considered the submissions of the parties at some length and also gone through the relevant materials on record. We have also consciously delineated the relevant chronology of events and facts which are material for consideration of the issue at hand, though, they are spread over a period of almost 20 years by now and if the period of the alleged misconduct is counted, date back to the year 1988. As the narrative shows, the officers of the BSNL granted these respondents and others, twelve in total, the status of temporary Mazdoor on 19th March, 1998. This was put in abeyance by the order dated 20th January, 1999. The order putting in abeyance was the subject matter of challenge in O.A. No. 144 of 1999. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by a detailed judgment rendered on 29th November, 2001 had been pleased to quash the order of termination with a direction to re-engage them as temporary status Mazdoor on the similar terms and conditions. The respondents were granted liberty to inquire into the allegations of forged certificates submitted by these applicants after giving them opportunity to participate in inquiry and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law in the light of the enquiry report. The respondents were granted liberty to inquire into the allegations of forged certificates submitted by these applicants after giving them opportunity to participate in inquiry and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law in the light of the enquiry report. Conspicuously, not only did the BSNL reinstate them in service in due obedience of the order of the learned Tribunal and also taking into account the direction of the CGMT, Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi (contained in Letter dated 31st December, 2001) vide Annexure-6, order of reinstatement dated 25th January, 2002 but also simultaneously started a task for verification of the original work diary of these persons as per communication dated 7th January, 2002 (Annexure A/4). Such work diaries were duly submitted by the employees vide Annexure A/5 dated 16th January, 2002. The order of reinstatement is dated 25.1.2002. The petitioner-employer thereafter took note of the original work diary submitted by these employees as is evident from the letters dated 8th July, 2002 addressed to Office of TSM, TRA Unit Office of TDM, Dumka, TS under SDE (G) WLL, Jamtara, TSM under SDE (G) WLL Sahibganj, TSM under SDE (WLL) B. Deoghar, (enclosed at pages 51 to 54 of the counter-affidavit). The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 30th April, 2002 comprising office of TDM, Dumka, Divisional Engineer (Phones), Deoghar arrived at a finding after scrutiny of the relevant records and recommended the case of the employees which includes the present respondents for granting them regularization as regular Mazdoor from the due dates enumerated therein. The said minutes is at Annexure A/7 to the counter-affidavit. Consequent letter of regularization was issued on 11th July, 2002 bearing Memo No. E 132/96-96/104/204. Copies thereof were also forwarded to the C.G.M.T., Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi and other officials. Annexure 1 is a list enclosed thereto which contains the name of these respondents as well. It further appears that an inquiry was conducted under the chairmanship of Telecom District Manager, Dumka, TDM, Dumka, DE(P), Deoghar, DE (A & P) Office of TDM Dumka in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 144 of 1999 and also letter dated 31st December, 2001 of the CGMT Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi (Annexure-A/9). The Inquiry Committee rendered a finding that the appointment of all 12 TSMs cannot be categorized as false appointment. 10. The petitioner in its reply herein at paragraph Nos. The Inquiry Committee rendered a finding that the appointment of all 12 TSMs cannot be categorized as false appointment. 10. The petitioner in its reply herein at paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 however have made statements that no documents in relation to the said enquiry are available in the office of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Ranchi. They rely on a letter of Mr. P.P. Sahu dated 23.4.2014 (Annexure-10 to reply) on the authenticity of the report dated 5.4.2002. According to them Mr. P.P. Sahu has disowned being author of any such Three Men Committee report. They also state that one Sita Ram Jha who was the custodian of records was behind these illegal appointments as some of the RMs are his relatives or neighbours. Learned counsel for the respondents has sought to rebut the contention based upon the letter of 23.4.2014 of Mr. P.P. Sahu saying that the petitioner has concocted documents in the year 2014 from Mr. P.P. Sahu long after his retirement from BSNL only to strengthen their false case. 11. This, however, may not detain us at this stage as it further appears from the report of the CBI by letter No. 431/CO/JHN/2010/0007 dated 10th August, 2010 (Page 207 of counter-affidavit) addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited that an inquiry was initiated through letter dated 22nd May, 2004 issued by the then AGM (Admn.) and office of CGMT, Jharkhand Telecom Circle, Ranchi to the TDM, Dumka advising him to deal with such cases as he is fully competent to do so. The TDM, Dumka by letter dated 21st March, 2004 sought guidelines and permission to open the case by either initiating proper departmental proceeding after conducting an inquiry or to appeal before the High Court, Ranchi against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal or to regularize the service of 12 casual Mazdoors after seeking approval from the headquarter. Reminder thereto were also issued and is dated 10.5.2004. Consequent to the letter dated 21st March, 2004, a committee was formed on the order of TDM, Dumka on 29th August, 2005 to inquire into the alleged irregular conferment of temporary status to casual labourers in the light of the order passed in O.A. No. 144 of 1999 and to submit a report within twenty days. The committee could not conclude the inquiry in the stipulated time. The committee could not conclude the inquiry in the stipulated time. However, verification by the C.B.I. further reveals that TDM, Dumka made a note on the note sheet "as per verbal/telephonic instruction of the GM (O) and the CGMT Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi further inquiry into the forged certificates of regular conferment of TSMs to applicants in C.A.T. O.A. No. 144 of 1999 is to be stopped." The said letter is dated 15.2.2006 at page 103 of the counter-affidavit (Annexure A/12). The CBI returned the file with a comment that no further communication was received from the office of CGMT, Ranchi in the office of TDM Dumka in this matter as per the available records. The C.B.I. opined that B.S.N.L. may take necessary action as deemed fit at their end against the officers of BSNL and if any criminality is found they may refer back to CBI for necessary action. The matter came to rest at that stage till 2016 when again the BSNL authorities undertook a preliminary inquiry. In between respondents and others approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal at Ranchi for grant of promotion on the basis of their claim that they had been regularized in service in July, 2002 itself and that juniors to them had been promoted. This application being O.A. No. 157 of 2013 was also contested by the BSNL-Petitioner herein. We have taken note of the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the said case on 24th March, 2015. The learned Tribunal considered the stand of the applicants as well as the respondent BSNL in detail. BSNL had also raised issue of investigation into the matter in the light of the earlier order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of the claim of these employees of their work experience. In the finding part, at para 5, the learned Tribunal noted that despite liberty granted by the Tribunal in its order dated 29th November, 2001, the respondents after nearly one and half decade reached nowhere in their investigation and had not categorically established anything substantive. No charge sheet had been issued against anyone. It appears that the respondents have either slept over the issue over more than a decade or else the document filed at Annexure R/10 is merely an attempt at stone walling, apart from being seriously vulnerable to questions about its credibility. No charge sheet had been issued against anyone. It appears that the respondents have either slept over the issue over more than a decade or else the document filed at Annexure R/10 is merely an attempt at stone walling, apart from being seriously vulnerable to questions about its credibility. It also opined that documents filed at R/6 series lead to no specific conclusions in as much as there are references to the fact that on verbal and telephonic instruction of GMO and CGMT, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi further inquiry had been stopped. The respondents have thereafter, taken up matters internally. On perusal of CBI note, it is also indicated that nothing conclusive had been established till date and that the respondents have no great urgency in bringing the matter to any conclusion. The applicants on their part had brought on record the letter dated 11th July, 2002 of their regularization against vacant post and that the respondents had lived with these orders for more than a decade. The respondents had taken no action after lapse of more than 13 years to either invalidate or cancel letters or the orders issued for regularization of these employees. They were also issued admit card to appear in the screening test for appointment to the level of Telecom Mechanic. These inactions were manifestation of the approach of the respondents and failure in expeditiously reaching in substantive milestone and taking any consequential action. After making such observations, however, in the concluding paragraph at para 6, the learned Tribunal refrained from making any comments on the sorry state of investigative efforts undertaken by the respondents. It however, also observed that if the respondents choose to continue with these efforts and reach a conclusion, if ever, they will be at liberty to take such consequential action as may be justifiable within applicable rules/guidelines. However, till they do so they cannot hold the future of the applicants to ransom indefinitely. The instant order dated 24th March, 2015 is under challenge by the BSNL in W.P.(S) No. 1819 of 2017 pending before this Court. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has on his part made copious reference to the findings rendered in the preliminary inquiry at Annexure-4 which recommended suitable action as per rule against the erring officer/officials of the competent authority. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has on his part made copious reference to the findings rendered in the preliminary inquiry at Annexure-4 which recommended suitable action as per rule against the erring officer/officials of the competent authority. It also observed that casual labourers as named at Table A/13 were instrumental in fabricating the fake documents in collusion with some departmental officers for their legal appointment. In respect of two such employees Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip Kumar, it further makes observation that the certificates of educational qualifications submitted by them were duly verified by the TDM, Dumka from the concerned school at Bihar but, the school authority has given in writing that the said School Leaving Certificate of Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip Kumar have not been issued by them (copy thereto is enclosed to Annexure 43 to the report). This report has formed the basis for initiation of the charge sheet against the respondents herein and other employees similarly situated. 13. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in the list of documents Annexure III enclosed with the article of charge and imputation of misconduct, the documents enclosed till Serial No. 23 are of a period prior to regularization of these employees. The regularization order was issued on 11th July, 2002 pursuant to the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 30.4.2002 referred to in the foregoing paragraphs as well. 14. We do not intend to make any comment upon the contents of the preliminary inquiry report as on the one hand, neither was it produced before the learned Tribunal nor did the respondents get any opportunity to represent before the committee at the time of preparation of the report. However, one thing is conspicuously clear that the entire exercise towards initiation of the departmental proceeding by charge sheet dated 29th December, 2016 suffers from inordinate delay. If the petitioners have taken a cue from the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 29th November, 2001, their actions/inaction speak for themselves. On the one hand, the departmental" promotion committee after scrutiny of the records recommended for their regularization in the year 2002 itself, in due obedience to the directions passed by the learned Tribunal. If the petitioners have taken a cue from the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 29th November, 2001, their actions/inaction speak for themselves. On the one hand, the departmental" promotion committee after scrutiny of the records recommended for their regularization in the year 2002 itself, in due obedience to the directions passed by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, inquiries if any, undertaken thereafter either contained in the report dated 12th July, 2002 which is refuted by the petitioner-BSNL despite reference to specific letter dated 31st December, 2001 of C.G.M.T., Ranchi therein or the enquiry undertaken pursuant to the letter dated 21st May, 2004 of the AGM (Admn) Office of CGMT, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi or the inquiry undertaken by the CBI as per its report dated 10th August, 2010 did not end up in any substantive action or findings against these employees. The learned Tribunal had also reasons to make observations against the approach of BSNL in failure to arrive at any substantive finding in respect of such a serious allegation even after one and half decade. In such circumstances, an inquiry as contemplated by the BSNL is permitted to be proceeded against the respondents it shall necessarily cause grave prejudice to the charged employee as BSNL has nothing to show that the blame for the delay lies upon these employees. In this regard we may, usefully reproduce opinion of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 at paragraph 19 hereunder which has also been relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of P.B. Mahadevan Vs. M.D.T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 at paragraph No. 19, which reads as under: "19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." Though there are no predetermined principles applicable to such cases or all situations where there is a delay in initiating or concluding the disciplinary proceeding but, as per the opinion of the Apex Court, an essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the proceeding should be allowed or to terminate it particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that proceedings are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss for their error, if they are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceeding. The court has to look into the nature of the charge, its complexity and on what account the delay is occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. This is enough to show that how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against these employees. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of M. Bhaskaran (supra) in support of his submission that employment procured on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards could be voidable at the option of the employer. The employee cannot plead estoppel against the employer. As the fact of the said case revealed, it was not in dispute between the parties that the Respondent Workmen had got employment in Railway by producing bogus and forged casual labourer service card purported to have been issued by their earlier employer. They had entered into service in 1983 and departmental proceedings were initiated in 1987 itself though had dragged for a number of years. They had entered into service in 1983 and departmental proceedings were initiated in 1987 itself though had dragged for a number of years. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the action of the employer in recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders, of course after following due procedure of law and compliance of the principles of natural justice on which there was no dispute between the parties. As the fact of present case show, there is serious dispute between the parties that these Respondents had obtained employment by producing fake experience certificate. Not only were they taken back in service pursuant to the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 25.01.2002 but after due scrutiny of their records, which they submitted on being asked, they were regularized in service by virtue of the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 30.04.2002. The consequential letter of regularization was issued on 11.07.2002. 16. We have also found that there were 3 inquiries, one undertaken in the year 2002 as per Annexure-9, which opined that appointment of these 12 PSMS cannot be categorized as false appointment, the second inquiry initiated through letter dated 22.05.2004 was also stopped by virtue of instructions of G.M.(O & CGMT) Circle Ranchi. The matter was further inquired into by the C.B.I. which returned the file with the opinion that BSNL may take necessary action as deemed fit at their end against the officials of BSNL. It also took note of the fact that inquiry initiated in 2004 was stopped by the instruction of G.M.(O & CGMT) Circle Ranchi in 2006. These circumstances show that over a period of more than 1 and 1/2 decade the petitioner BSNL failed to make out anything substantive in relation to the allegation of their employment having obtained on the basis of fake experience certificate. The BSNL has, as a matter of fact failed to establish that in the inquiry which remained inconclusive in the year 2006 or one which was conducted by the CBI, the employees/Respondents had any role to scuttle the same. In such background facts, initiation of the departmental inquiry in December 2016 on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted in August 2016 could be an exercise in futility subjecting these employees to a full dress inquiry on unsubstantiated charges which dates back to more than 18 years. In such background facts, initiation of the departmental inquiry in December 2016 on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted in August 2016 could be an exercise in futility subjecting these employees to a full dress inquiry on unsubstantiated charges which dates back to more than 18 years. In such view of the matter, the approach of the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be injudicious. 17. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) on the plea that fraud in obtaining appointment strike at the very foundation of their claim and in such circumstances, these employees cannot be permitted to urge that they cannot be subject to inquiry, trial or investigation. The background circumstances noted above do not lend support to the case sought to be established by the petitioner on the plea of fraud as they themselves had failed to arrive at any substantive conclusion in that regard for more than 1 and 1/2 decade and 3 such inquiries including that by the CBI remaining inconclusive. 18. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra) the matter was referred to the 3 judges larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court to resolve the conflict of opinion in respect of various decisions of the Court in case of suppression of requisite information or submission of false information by the appointees in regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of any criminal case against them. The matter was referred to the larger Bench by the 2 judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jainendra Singh Vrs. State of U.P. [ 2012 (8) SCC 748 ]. The Apex Court after dealing with all precedents on the point summarized the conclusion at para 38 of the report. It deals with the effect of false information submitted by a candidate seeking employment in relation to his conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service. The Apex Court after dealing with all precedents on the point summarized the conclusion at para 38 of the report. It deals with the effect of false information submitted by a candidate seeking employment in relation to his conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service. The Hon'ble Court however also discussed the case of M. Bhaskaran (supra) at para 33 of the report on the point that appointment obtained on the basis of false document vitiate the transaction and the incumbent may be terminated without holding the inquiry, however in case the employee is confirmed holding a civil post and has protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, due inquiry is to be held before terminating his service. Fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of the employer. 19. As we noticed herein above in the case of M. Bhaskaran (supra), it was not in dispute between the parties that Respondent workmen concerned had obtained employment by producing bogus and forged casual labourer service card purportedly issued by the earlier employers. In the facts of the present case, whether the employment was obtained by producing fake certificate was not only in serious dispute, but the inquiries conducted by the BSNL and the CBI had failed to come to any substantive conclusive opinion in that regard. In the aforesaid background facts and circumstances, petitioner is unable to seek any reliance on the judgments cited on their behalf, specially in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of N. Radhakrishnan (supra) quoted above. 20. We have given anxious consideration to the relevant materials on record pleaded by the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case taken note in the preceding paragraphs. On being tested on the settled principles of judicial review, we are satisfied that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has not committed any error in law or facts in allowing the Original Application. 21. The B.S.N.L., respondent before the C.A.T. had not brought on record the preliminary report which has been the basis for initiation of department proceeding. However, we have taken note of in the foregoing paragraphs that the enquiry committee on 22.08.2016 had found on verification that the certificate of educational qualification of two such employees Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip were fake. However, we have taken note of in the foregoing paragraphs that the enquiry committee on 22.08.2016 had found on verification that the certificate of educational qualification of two such employees Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip were fake. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioner, B.S.N.L. should have liberty to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against these two employees for such charges. 22. In the totality of facts and circumstances and for the reasons indicated above, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that liberty is reserved with the B.S.N.L. to proceed against these two aforementioned employees in accordance with law.