The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired BSNL employee for failure to adhere to the four-year limitation prescribed under the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, and directed the authorities to release his retirement benefits.

In doing so, the Court also set aside the consequential show-cause notice, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were unsustainable as they had been initiated beyond the prescribed period.

Under Rule 61(4)(2)(b) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, disciplinary proceedings not instituted while an employee was in service cannot be instituted after retirement in respect of an event that took place more than four years before such institution.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed the writ petitions and observed:

“It is also an admitted fact that the department had knowledge of the alleged fake certificates pertaining to 31 members as early as 17.04.2018. Under the applicable rules, where disciplinary proceedings are instituted after retirement, such proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years prior to the date of such institution. In the present case, the charge memo was issued only on 16.09.2023.

Thus, even though the department had knowledge of the alleged misconduct by 17.04.2018, the charge memo came to be issued more than four years thereafter. The disciplinary proceedings, having been instituted beyond the period prescribed under the applicable rules, are therefore unsustainable. Accordingly, the charge memo dated 16.09.2023 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to process and release the petitioner's retirement benefits in accordance with the VRS order dated 07.01.2020, as per the applicable rules.”

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Mazdoor in the BSNL department on a temporary basis in March 1990. His services were subsequently regularised in September 1993.

In 2019, he opted for voluntary retirement under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme. His application was accepted, and he was permitted to retire with effect from January 2020. The retirement order stated that no vigilance or departmental proceedings were pending against him.

However, despite his retirement under the scheme, his retirement benefits remained unpaid for nearly three years. When he submitted a representation in November 2022 seeking their release, he was informed that a complaint had been received regarding his date of birth.

Following this, the authorities issued a show-cause notice in January 2023, asking him to explain the alleged submission of a bogus date-of-birth certificate at the time of his appointment. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the non-release of his retirement benefits and the show-cause notice.

While the writ petition was pending, the respondents issued a charge memo in September 2023. The petitioner challenged the charge memo through a separate writ petition.

The High Court disposed of both petitions through a common order as they involved common issues.

The respondents submitted that a complaint received in June 2018 alleged that 31 employees had secured their appointments on the basis of fake and forged certificates. The petitioner was listed at Sl. No. 26. Following the complaint, proceedings were initiated to verify his certificate and determine his age.

They further contended that although the petitioner had been permitted to retire under the VRS, the release of his retirement benefits was subject to the outcome of the complaint. They relied on Rule 61(4)(2)(a) and (b) of the BSNL Rules, which governs the institution of disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement.

Examining the applicable provisions, the Court noted that the rules restrict the institution of disciplinary proceedings after retirement in respect of events that took place more than four years before such institution, where the proceedings were not instituted while the employee was in service.

Applying this restriction to the case, the Court noted that the department had knowledge of the alleged fake certificates as early as April 2018, but issued the charge memo only in September 2023.

It held that the proceedings had been initiated beyond the prescribed four-year period and were therefore unsustainable.

Consequently, The Court set aside the September 2023 charge memo and the consequential show-cause notice issued in January 2023. 

It directed the respondents to release the petitioner's retirement and consequential benefits under the applicable rules and the January 2020 VRS order within four months of receiving the order.

The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: S. Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: Harinath N (Deputy Solicitor General of India), B. Satyanarayana, Bokka Satyanarayana Kamla