SK SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the 3rd respondent dated 05.06.2002, which has been confirmed by the 1st respondent by his communication dated 30.09.2002, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner herein joined as Assistant Commandant on 04.02.1980 in the Indian Coast Guard service. Subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Commandant and then as Commandant. Thereafter, he was posted as Commanding Officer of Coast Guard Office at Tuticorin and he served in that capacity between May,1996 and June,2000. Then, the petitioner was transferred to the Coast Guard Station at Chennai for duties with Regional Headquarters(East). It is the case of respondents 1 to 3 that while the petitioner was working as the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Station at Tuticorin between May, 1996 and June, 2000, the Deputy Commandant, M.K.Bhat, reported to duty on permanent transfer during April 1998 and subsequently, another Deputy Commandant, S.K.Nath, also reported to duty on permanent transfer in July 1998 to the Coast Guard Station, Tuticorin. The petitioner did not assign various duties of the Station to both these officers and kept the duties of the Supply Officer along with certain other duties with himself throughout his tenure as the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Station, Tuticorin. In the said situation, during June 1999, when the Assistant Commandant D.K.Chauhan reported to duty on permanent transfer at Tuticorin, the petitioner assigned him the duties of the Station Technical Officer and Officer Incharge of the Interceptor Crafts. While so, during December 1999, D.K.Chauhan, the Assistant Commandant put up a representation through his Executive Officer for the Commander, Coast Guard Region (East) at Chennai, alleging mental harassment and certain financial irregularities which he had noticed, but the same was not forwarded to the Regional Headquarters (East). Subsequently when the petitioner was transferred to the Coast Guard Station at Chennai, the said Chauhan once again put up another representation to the new Commanding Officer bringing out the facts about the harassment and irregularities during the petitioner's tenure and also enclosing copy of the earlier representation submitted by him during July, 2000. The representation sent by Chauhan was investigated by the Commanding Officer, on the instructions of the Regional Headquarters (E) and a report was submitted to the higher authorities. Thereafter, the Commanding Officer convened two Boards of enquiry for investigating the circumstances leading to the irregularities at the Coast Guard Station, Tuticorin reported by the Assistant Commandant D.K.Chauhan. The Board of enquiry proceedings revealed serious financial and other irregularities which were attributable to the petitioner and other enrolled persons of the Station, apart from some lapses on the part of the Assistant Commandant, Chauhan. After perusing the proceedings of the Board of Enquiry, the Director General, Coast Guard Headquarters, directed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and other persons, who were responsible for the specific lapses on their part, in accordance with Rule 21 of the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 1983.

(3.) The Commanding Officer, based on the appraisal of record of evidence adduced in accordance with Rule 21 of Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 1983, in the presence of the petitioner, submitted the case for convening of Coast Guard Court in terms of Rules 26 and 27 of the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 1983, for trial of the petitioner on 13 charges framed for offences under the said Act, contained in the charge sheet, which was prepared in accordance with Rule 45 of the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rues, 1983. The 1st respondent, on being satisfied with the prima facie evidence relating to the 13 charges contained in the record of evidence, convened a Coast Guard Court for trial of the petitioner. The said Coast Guard Court assembled at Tuticorin on 29th May 2002 and conducted the trial proceedings. On conclusion of the trial, the Coast Guard Court found the petitioner guilty of 10 charges out of 13 contained in the charge sheet and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service, as provided under section 53 of the Coast Guard Act, by its order dated 5th June, 2002. The copies of the coast guard proceedings were also served on the petitioner and during July, 2002, he submitted an application to the Chief Law Officer, the 3rd respondent, for a judicial review of the trial proceedings in accordance with sections 117 and 118 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. The judicial proceedings were conducted by the Chief Law Officer on 9th September, 2002 at the Coast Guard Headquarters in the presence of the petitioner along with DIG TS Balasubramaniam, who was the defending officer and Commandant Nautiyal, who was the Prosecutor during the Coast Guard court trial. Thereafter, the judicial review report was submitted by the Chief Law Officer to the 1st respondent Director General. After due consideration of the Coast Guard Court trial and the judicial review report, the 1st respondent decided to maintain the findings and sentence of the Coast Guard Court and the decision of the 1st respondent was also conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 30.09.2002. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.