IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3536 of 2007 Sachida Nand Rai, Son of late Hari Nandan Rai, resident of Village-Ujiar, P.O. Karantadih, P.S. Narhi, District- Ballia (U.P.), working as Sr. TOA (T), Telegraph Office, B.S.N.L., Buxar ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.), Bihar Circle, Patna 2. Telecom District Manager, B.S.N.L., Arah District- Bhojpur 3. Divisional Engineer ( A& P), Office of the T.D.M., B.S.N.L., Arrah 4. Sub- Divisional Engineer (Phones), B.S.N.L., Buxar. 5. Sub Divisional Engineer (Telegraph), Groups, Buxar -- ------ Respondents. -------- 2. 21.10.2008 Heard Mr. M. P. Dixit for the petitioner and Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh for the respondents. It arises out of disciplinary proceedings. This writ petition is directed against the appellate order, whereby the order of punishment passed by the learned disciplinary authority has been up-held. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be narrated. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Officer-in-charge, Telegraph Office, Buxar, which is category C post. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charges for imposing minor penalty dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure-3), under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟). The charges are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “1. That, Sri S.N. Rai Sr. T.O.A.(T) I/c DTO Buxar joined strike on 23.10.96 without proper intimation to the higher authority. 2. That the said Sri Rai did not hand over charge of D.T.O. and 4 days collection to S.D.E., Buxar, the controlling Officer before proceeding on strike. 3.That, he kept the money in unsafe place and not in 2 safe custody causing loss of Rs. 33,176/- and non providing security arrangement in D.T.O. Buxar. 4. That, he was not staying in departmental accommodation.” The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 5.10.2000 (Annexure 4), whereby he denied the charges. In substance he stated that the notice for strike had been given to the superior authorities by the petitioner and others. It was further stated that he had approached the authorities to make alternative arrangement during the period of strike, but the petitioner was asked to continue to be in-charge of the office. He has further stated that no iron safe has been provided in spite of repeated requisitions. He has also submitted that no night guard has been provided as a result of which theft of a sum of Rs. 33,176/- had taken place. On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by the petitioner, the learned disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment dated 15.5.2001 (Annexure-5), whereby it was ordered that he shall be deprived of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect, and it was further ordered for punishment of recovery of Rs.33,176/- from the salary over a period of one year. The petitioner‟s statutory appeal was rejected which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, which was allowed, the appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned appellate authority has thereafter disposed of the petitioner‟s appeal by the order dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure-9), and impugned herein. The petitioner has approached 3 this Court without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. I am informed at the Bar that an appeal does not lie before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel submits that the respondents authorities were bound in law to hold a regular enquiry and follow the detailed procedure. He next submits that the learned appellate authority did not afford him an opportunity of personal hearing. He also submits that the learned appellate authority did not deal with all the contentions raised by him in the memorandum of appeal. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Manindra Chandra Dhar Vrs. Tripura Road Transport Corpn. and others reported in Administrative Total Judgments 2002(3) 621. He also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Subhas Chandra V. Union of India and others reported in Administrative Total Judgments 2006(3) 381. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action. In so far as the first contention is concerned, it is manifest from the memorandum of charges that it was served with the intention to impose minor penalties and was indeed under Rule 16 of the Rules which prescribes the procedure for imposition of minor penalties. Furthermore, the penalties imposed on the petitioner are minor penalties prescribed by rule 11 of the Rules. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the grievance that he was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, nor all the contentions raised by him in the memorandum of appeal have been discussed. Law is well settled that minor penalties can be imposed only on the basis of issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the cause shown, if any. In such a case, there is no duty on the disciplinary authority to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. In a proceeding for imposition of minor penalties, there is neither the requirement of appointment of the Enquiry Officer nor is there any scope to afford any opportunity of personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the appellate order does not deal with all his grievances. It appears to me on perusal of the appellate order that he has applied his mind to all the relevant aspects of the mater and assigned reasons to up-hold the order of punishment. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)