2025:UHC:7135-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No.130 of 2021 13 August, 2025 Nit Ram Arya --Petitioner Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the respondents/B.S.N.L. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged judgment dated 23.04.2019 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench (Circuit Bench at Nainital) in O.A. No.331/00727/2017. By the said judgment, petitioner’s challenge to punishment of 5% deduction from his pension for one year was rejected. 2. At the time of his retirement on 31.10.2011, petitioner was serving as Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited at Bareilly. Before his retirement, a show cause notice was issued to him to which he replied on 15.03.2011. His reply was not found to be satisfactory and petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 28.10.2011 and thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 06.06.2012. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge- 1 2025:UHC:7135-DB sheet and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority/ Director H.R. imposed punishment of 5% deduction from his pension for a period of one year. 3. Petitioner filed departmental appeal against punishment order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner thereafter, approached Central Administrative Tribunal challenging punishment order and also order passed by Appellate Authority. Learned Tribunal rejected the challenge to punishment order and appellate authority’s order vide judgment dated 23.04.2019 which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Tribunal has considered and discussed the matter in great detail. The challenge thrown by petitioner was repelled on the ground that petitioner has not alleged any procedural lapses on the part of departmental authority while holding the inquiry. Petitioner contended before the Tribunal that he has been held responsible wrongly and he had no role to play in the incident, which lead to issuance of charge-sheet. 6. Learned Tribunal dealt with the said aspect by relying on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that while 2 2025:UHC:7135-DB exercising power of judicial review, the High Court or Tribunal cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty and interference with punishment order can be made only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate to nature and gravity of charges. 7. Before us also learned counsel for petitioner challenged punishment on merit and not on procedural impropriety or violation of rule. Scope of judicial review is very limited in disciplinary matters. The disciplinary inquiry was held as per laid down procedure and there was no allegation that petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. 8. There is no allegation that the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer is perverse or based on no evidence. In such view of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.08.2025 SS 3 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129 a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B 7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.10 16:40:19 +05'30'