Heard Mr. T. Rath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. K.C. Kanungo, Ld. Counsel appearing for the BSNL, and perused the record.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i) To admit this OA;
ii) To quash the Memorandum of charge dated 18.11.2015 issued under Annexure-A/1.
iii) To quash the appointment of IO and PO as the same has not been made by the Disciplinary Authority and on the other hand, the same having been approved/made by the chief General Manager Telecom, BSNL (Respondent No. 1) smacks malafide and vitiates the entire proceedings.
iv) To hold and declare that the report of the IO dated 29.07.2017 as communicated vide his letter dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure-A/6 series) as illegal and quash the same.
v) To grant all consequential relief to the applicant to which he is entitled to under the rules.
vi) To issue appropriate order/orders and/or direction/direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and vii) To allow the O.A. with costs.”
3. We find that vide memorandum dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure-A/1), the applicant was chargesheeted under Rule 33(B) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, which ultimately ended into imposition of punishment vide order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure-A/8) with direction that the punishment of recovery will be taken effect from January, 2018, against which, the applicant preferred appeal on 15.01.2018 before General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Balasore, vide Annexure-A/9 and without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, he has filed this O.A. with aforesaid prayers and further to stay the operation of the order of punishment.
4. Mr. K.C. Kanungo by drawing our attention to the provision of the AT Act, 1985 has strongly opposed the very maintainability of this O.A. on the ground that when the order of punishment has already been taken effect from January, 2018, the applicant ought not to have filed this O.A. before completion of six months period as provided under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985.
5. We find substantial force on the submission of Mr. Kanungo that as the order has already been taken effect, question of staying the punishment order does not arise and, therefore, the applicant should have waited till outcome of the appeal.
6. O.A. is not admitted and is dismissed being premature. It is made clear that the applicant can approach this Tribunal if the appeal is not decided within six months period.
7. Copy of this order, along with O.A. be sent to Respondent No. 3.