Narayan Kocheri vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Every disciplinary proceeding by an employer Is made subject matter or a writ petition just because the employer happens to come within the definition or ''State'' for the purpose or Article 12 of the Constitution or India.

Every order of punishment Imposed on an employee in such disciplinary proceeding is also argued as a Regular First Appeal inviting the attention of the High Court In a petition under Article 226 or the Constitution or India to re-appreciate the evidence to examine questions of fact, law etc., One such petition Is the present writ petition wherein the petitioner, an employee of M/s. Bharat sanchar Nlgam Limited was proceeded against In a departmental enquiry proceeding and was found guilty or certain charges for which, the petitioner was Imposed punishment or reduction or pay scale by four stages.

Appeal to the appellate authority having failed, the present writ petition.

Submission of Sri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that while the disciplinary authority had not shown any awareness to the facts and just because the petitioner happened to be at the spot where certain material of the department was found burning which was intimated by some passerby, he had been made a scapegoat.

The finding by tine disciplinary authority In respect of the following two charges

Article-I

That the said Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic, Staff No. BM-0758 or Belgaum Urban & while functioning as Phone Mechanic at Chikodi Phones area during the period 2001 -2002 on deputation did not deposit the balance cable pieces after jointing works at stores at Chikodi. But the cable pieces balance after the jointing works were burnt and made the bare copper conductor. On 15.3.2002 Sri N.J. Kocheri, was taken Into the custody by the Police Authorities for burning of cable pieces at graveyard Chikodi.

Thus the above said act or Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic, railed to maintained the a two lute integrity violating Rule 3(1)(I) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II

That the said Sri N.J. Kocheri, Starr No. BM-0758, Phone Mechanic, Belgaum Urban & while functioning as Phone Mechanic at Chikodi Phones area during the year 2001 to 2002 on deputation did not deposit the recovered drop wire during DP Erection/up gradation work. The drop wire recovered by Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic to the quantity of 17305 meters noticed from his ACE-3 bills submitted by him to the ACE-2 account of Sri M.R. Gudagudi, SDE/JTO (Retd).

Thus the said Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic, Belgaum Urban area caused a huge loss to BSNL Belgaum SSA by not depositing the drop wire at stores at Chikodi. This also amounts that the said Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic committed gross Irregularities with dishonest motive.

Thus the above said act or Sri N.J. Kocheri, Phone Mechanic, railed to maintained the absolute integrity and devotion to duty violating Rule 3(1)(I), 3(1)(II) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

are that the petitioner who was responsible for certain cable entrusted to him had failed to deposit the balance cable pieces after the work was done while he was under deputation for such work.

The appellate authority did not find any occasion to Interfere.

Submission of Sri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order passed by the appellate authority is that the appellate authority had simply dismissed the appeal without examining any facts or circumstances and without appreciating the several grounds urged In support of the appeal.

A perusal of the order does Indicate that the appellate authority had shown was awareness to the various grounds urged and in fact had framed the following points for consideration:

I) Whether the procedure as laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been compiled with.

II) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by evidence on record.

III) Discussion on the points raised in the appeal by the appellant.

IV) Whether the penalty Imposed on the appellant is adequate, Inadequate or severe.

The appellate authority had discussed these points at considerable length and had also examined the question or adequacy or excessive nature of punishment imposed vis-a-vis charges proved against the petitioner and the lapses on the pert of the petitioner which was quite severe In nature causing considerable loss to the organisation, was of the view that the appellant did not deserve any sympathy and therefore, concurred with the order of the disciplinary authority even with regard to the punishment Imposed.

The appellate authority had shown awareness to all aspects or the matter and passed a reasoned, convincing order for dismissing the appeal. It is not for the High Court to reexamine such matter and reappreciate the evidence as though it is an appeal while exercising Jurisdiction under Article 226/227 or the Constitution or India. These are essentially matters between the employer and the employee and are brought before the High Court only because the employer happens to be ''State''. No scope for interference.

Writ petition Is dismissed.