Court holds charge memo issued beyond four-year limitation period unsustainable under BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006; retirement benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 to be released within four months
In a significant judgment delivered on July 30, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Balaji Medamalli, set aside disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr. Yanda Dharma Rao, a retired BSNL employee. The petitioner had challenged the issuance of a show-cause notice and charge memo alleging submission of a bogus date-of-birth certificate during his appointment, along with the non-release of his retirement benefits under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019.
Mr. Dharma Rao was initially appointed as a Casual Mazdoor on a temporary basis in 1990 and was regularized in 1993. He opted for voluntary retirement under the BSNL VRS, and his retirement was approved effective January 31, 2020, with an official order stating no departmental or vigilance proceedings were pending against him at that time. Despite this, the respondents withheld his retirement benefits citing an ongoing complaint about alleged fake certificates that surfaced in 2018.
During the pendency of the writ petition challenging the non-release of benefits and the show-cause notice dated January 20, 2023, the department issued a charge memo on September 16, 2023. The petitioner contested this memo as being barred by limitation, since the department had knowledge of the alleged misconduct as early as 2018, but initiated formal disciplinary proceedings only after more than four years had elapsed.
The Court examined Rule 61(4)(2)(b) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, which clearly mandates that disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement require prior sanction from the Chairman/Managing Director and must relate to events within four years of institution of such proceedings. The Court noted that the charge memo issued in 2023 pertained to events known since 2018, exceeding the four-year limitation period, thus rendering the proceedings invalid.
Citing precedents such as Suchismita Misra v. High Court of Orissa (2023 SCC Online SC 1478) and C. Mallem Kondaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018 SCC Online Hyd 452), the Court reinforced that disciplinary proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed period are unsustainable and violate principles of natural justice and service law.
Consequently, the Court quashed both the charge memo and the show-cause notice, directing the respondents to process and release all retirement and consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the VRS order dated January 7, 2020, within four months of receiving the judgment copy.
This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural timelines in disciplinary actions against retired employees and safeguards the rights of employees availing of voluntary retirement benefits.
Bottom Line:
BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 - Disciplinary proceedings against retired employee cannot be instituted after retirement in respect of event which took place more than four years before institution of proceedings - Charge memo issued beyond four years from date when department had knowledge of alleged fake certificate held unsustainable - Retirement benefits under VRS directed to be released.
Statutory provision(s):
BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 Rule 61(4)(2)(a), Rule 61(4)(2)(b), BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, Constitution of India Articles 14, 16, 21
Yanda Dharma Rao v. General Manager, (AP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995506
