J.E. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chennai Port Trust initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellants after their retirement. The appellants challenged the proceedings before the Writ Court primarily on the ground that proceedings would not lie after retirement of employees in respect of an event which took place more than four years before institution of such proceedings. The writ court taking into account the prior proceedings and enquiry conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) opined that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and as such the same should be raised before the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 10 April 2014, the appellants are before this Court.

(2.) The appellant served in various capacities in Chennai Port Trust and ultimately retired as Superintending Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 April 2004. The Chennai Port Trust long after his retirement and more particularly on 16 September 2008 issued a charge memo with respect to an incident which is stated to have taken place from 22 October 2002 to 18 February 2004 (Charge No. 1) and from 7 August 2000 to 5 June 2003 (Charge No. 2). The appellant submitted reply to the charge memo. The appellant after receiving the enquiry notice filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 4449 of 2011 with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the ground of limitation.

(3.) The appellant joined the services of Chennai Port Trust as an Engineer (Marine) in 1979. He was promoted from time to time and ultimately he became the Chief Mechanical Engineer in 2001. The appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 June 2004. The Chennai Port Trust issued a charge memo to the appellant containing two charges. Both the charges relate to the period more than four years before initiating the proceedings. The charge memo contained allegations that during the period from 21 June 2001 to 30 June 2004 the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he permitted M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., to use the plot allotted by Chennai Port Trust earlier without any specific allotment order. The appellant submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo and thereafter he filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 4450 of 2011 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings would not lie against him on account of delay and more particularly on account of Regulation 56(ii) (b) of Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "MPT Regulations") which provides that proceedings shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.