V. PRABAKAR Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide Ref.No.CME/A1/1676/2013/MEE, dated 14.06.2014 and the Memorandum of the Respondent vide No.CME/A1/1676/2013/MEE, dated 19.10.2020 with the IO Report dated 14.08.2020, and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to regulate the period of suspension and as well as out of employment period, as duty for all purposes and for a further direction to the Respondents to draw and disburse pay and allowances due to him.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition, as narrated by the Petitioner in his Affidavit, are thus:

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, mere participation of the Petitioner in the departmental proceedings after the acquittal in the criminal case cannot be put against him, as he had not been issued with any Show Cause Notice before reviving the disciplinary proceedings after acquittal in the criminal case and hence, the Charge Memo itself is unsustainable. He pointed out that, in the Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2016, the Respondent decided to drop action on the Charge Memo dated 14.06.2014. There was no reservation to revise the departmental proceedings after disposal of the Criminal Appeal, which was pending before the Court, questioning the conviction. In the absence of reserving the liberty to reconsider the departmental proceedings, depending upon the result of the Criminal Appeal, the Respondent did not revive the departmental proceedings and proceeded further to conduct verbal enquiry. Since there was no reservation to revive the departmental proceedings, the impugned Charge Memo is liable to be set aside.