Page 5 - TELEWAVE APRIL-2016

Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside to the extent it has disallowed the interim relief sought by the petitioner”. In Para 10(iii) the order states “in the meantime, Ext. P1 shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue as the Chief General Manager of BSNL, Kerala Circle”. In compliance to that order Shri. M.S.S. Rao continued to function as the Chief General Manager of BSNL, Kerala Circle. The BSNL did not obtain any stay order for this from the appropriate court of law. Accordingly, for Shri. M.S.S.Rao, it was obligatory and lawfully to continue in the post of CGM, Kerala Circle, till it is revised by the apex court. When it was challenged by BSNL in SLP (C) No. 29617 / 2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 30-10-2015, granted leave and disposed of the appeal and passed the following order:- “Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants makes a statement before us that respondent No-1 will not be transferred out of Trivandrum. He further says that respondent No-1 will be posted as Principal of the Regional Training Telecom Centre, Trivandrum and that the post will not in any manner be subordinate to the Chief General Manager, which respondent No-1 is currently holding. The transfer of the petitioner will not affect his salary, benefits, perquisites and conditions of service. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside to the limited extent that the transfer of respondent No-1 has been kept in abeyance. The Tribunal is not precluded from deciding the case within the time schedule given by the High Court. The Civil appeal is disposed of.” As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 30/10/2015 in CA No. 9183 / 2015, the judgment of the High Court is set aside to the limited extent that the transfer of respondent No-1 has been kept in abeyance. Obviously, this cannot have a retrospective effect, but became effective only on 30-10-2015, i.e, on the date of disposal of the civil appeal. Accordingly, the continuance of Shri M.S.S.Rao in the office of CGM, BSNL, Kerala circle was legitimate and his holding the post of CGM Kerala during the period from 23-9-2015 to 30-10-2015 was lawful. These being the facts, it is a needless and futile exercise at this stage, to establish that Shri. L.Anandaram was the CGM for the period from 23-9-2015 to 30-10-2015. Even then, we are not against the decision/ proposal of the present circle administration to ratify the orders and approvals issued by the former CGM Shri. M.S.S. Rao during the period from 23-9-2015 to 30- 10-2015, if it is with a true spirit and intention for regularization. But we are apprehensive and unhappy in its move to undo or revise the disciplinary action initiated during that period against the wrongdoers involved in “harassment of woman employee at work-place” happened on 1-9-2015 in CGM’s office at Trivandrum. If the ratification is proposed purely on some technical grounds, then all proceedings of the disputed period should be ratified by the authority, but should not be altered or revised to any extent. If certain bold and unavoidable decisions related to disciplinary proceedings against offenders taken by the incumbent CGM during 23-9-2015 to 30-10-2015, are going to be nullified in the guise of such illogical grounds, we would say that the administration lacks will-power to resist the muscle-power of miscreants and shamefully colludes with their hateful egotism. It is reiterated that the written complaint filed by Smt. V.K. Sobha, SDE (PR) a member of this association, against some trade union activists who abused and sexually harassed her on 1-9-2015 while she was attending an official meeting in the office of the CGM, BSNL, Kerala circle, in the presence of CGM and several higher level officers, still remains unsettled. Unfortunately the BSNL administration which is supposed to act strictly in accordance with the stringent provisions contained in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, has been adopting a very inert attitude in this case, often taking steps favoring the culprits instead of imparting justice to the victim. The Company could not dispose the petition submitted by the victim even within six months, but it remains unattended and unsettled now after a long period of eight months. Now we infer from the letter No. DGM(Admn/HR) /Genl/2016/Pt.I/47 dated 25th April 2016 of Kerala circle,(quoted above) that, they are further attempting to erase the case citing technical grounds based on illogical reasoning, as detailed already. You are hereby requested to refer all our previous correspondences and personal discussions in this regard and make an immediate interference to ensure that full justice is done to the victim of sexual harassment and the culprits are awarded with befitting punishment in accordance with the law of the land. TELEWAVE 5 APRIL-2016