CWP No. 10794 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10794 of 2011 Date of Decision 03.06.2011 Mrs. Kusum Lata -----Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 10.12.2010 (P-4) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), holding that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity because in a departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges of absence from duty. In the absence of any violation of the process of holding of enquiry or mandatory provision of law the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and duly accepted by the punishing authority cannot be faulted. Once the enquiry is held in accordance with the procedure established by CWP No. 10794 of 2011 -2- law then the quantum of punishment is not to be interfered with because it is within the domain of the employer unless it shocks the conscious of a reasonable man. See Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police (2004) 4 SCC 560. 2. The only argument raised by Mr. H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed by an authority, which is subordinate to the appointing authority. According to the learned counsel, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Deputy General Manager/ TDM as per order of delegation of powers under CCS (CCA) Rules (A-4). Referring to the provision under the heading Ministerial Staff in selection grade, it has been argued that it is only the Deputy General Manager or TDMs who could be regarded as the appointing authority of the petitioner. 3. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel, however, we are unable to accept the same. In that regard, there is complete answer given by the Tribunal in its order dated 10.12.2010 (P-4), as is evident from the following observations: “In this connection, the respondents have drawn our attention to Annexures R-2 and R-3 and stated that the applicant being SS(O), DE (Admn) of the Circle/SSA was the appointing/ disciplinary authority in the case of the applicant and thus the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority. CWP No. 10794 of 2011 -3- Annexure R-2 is a letter dated 12.7.95 from Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Deptt. of Telecommunications on the subject of 'Appointing authorities' in Grade III and IV under BCR scheme'. It clarifies that in respect of Grade III and IV cadres employees under BCR, the appointing authorities would be the same as in the case of respective basic cadres. Similarly, Annexure R-3 has been addressed by BSNL authorities to the General Manager, BSNL Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh on the subject of 'Appointing/ Disciplinary/ Appellate authorities in the cadre of Telecom , Sr. TOA & TTA' and it states in unequivocal terms that in case of Telecom Mechanics, TTA and Sr. TOAs, DE (Admn)/ AGM(A) of the Circle would be the appointing/ disciplinary authority.” 4. It is, thus, evident that the appointing authority in respect of Grade III and IV under BCR would be the same as in the case of respective basic cadre. The memo dated 07.10.2003 (R-3) addressed to the General Manager, BSNL, Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh on the subject of 'Appointing/ Disciplinary/ Appellate authority in the cadre of Telecom Mechanic, Sr. TOA and TTA stated in unmistakable term that the DE (Admn) AGM(A) of the Circle would be the appointing/ disciplinary authority. Therefore, the grant CWP No. 10794 of 2011 -4- of selection grade of 1400 -2300 on completion of 16 years service under the TBOP scheme would not bring any change in the appointing/ disciplinary authority in her case. Accordingly, Divisional Engineer Phones (Admn) was competent to pass the order of removal. There is, thus, no merit in the aforesaid contention and the same is accordingly, rejected. 5. No other argument has been raised. 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. - (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Atul