J.E. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN AND S. KANNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST AND THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the legal issue raised in both the Writ Petitions are identical, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4449 of 2011, is a former Superintending Engineer, of the Chennai Port Trust, having retired from service on 30.4.2004 and the challenge in the Writ Petition is to the charge sheet dated 16.9.2008, issued to the petitioner under the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulations, 1987.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P. No. 4450 of 2011 is the former Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Chennai Port Trust, having retired from service on 30.6.2004, and the challenge is to the charge sheet dated 16.9.2008, issued under the provisions of the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulations, 1987.

(3.) THE allegation against the petitioner in W.P. No. 4449 of 2011 is that while functioning as Superintending Engineer (Ore Handling) during the period from March, 1988 to February 2004, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as (a) he suppressed the file containing the note suggesting to recover the way leave charges from M/s. Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. (M/s. Ruchi) for the period 2002, from 22.10.2004 to 18.2.2004 with the intention to cause undue gain to the said Company; (b) he permitted M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. to operate from the port land allotted to them earlier without any allotment order or agreement during the period from 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003, and failed to bring it to the notice of higher authorities as a result of which the Chennai Port Trust was put to loss of Rs. 87,79,269.60 ps. towards the short fall and wharfage charges. Therefore it was stated that the above mentioned commission/omission contravened clause (3)(1 (i) (ii) of the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulation 1987. In the statement of imputation in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner, it was stated that M/s. Ruchi was permitted to lay pipeline from Bharathi Dock and container terminal berth to their installation at the scale of rate prescribed by Chennai Port Trust., that during December 2001, the Container terminal berth was handed over to a private company and M/s. Ruchi was requested to remove their pipe lines vide letter dated 1.12.2001 as they did not remove the piper line till October 2002, a demand was sent for remitting the licence fee for the year 2002, including the pipeline in the container terminal berth. M/s. Ruchi stated that the pipelines have been disconnected from the Container berth and way leave fees for the remaining pipelines is only to be charged. The Chennai Port Trust did not accept the contention of M/s. Ruchi and a draft letter to the said effect was prepared by the Junior Administrative Officer on 22.10.2002, which have to be addressed to the company. The allegation is that the petitioner did not take any action on the file thought it has been put up to him repeatedly. Prior to his transfer and posting as Superintending Engineer (W), the petitioner put up a note on 8.2.2004 in the file stating that since the file is opened and is alive, since 1996, action may be taken in a fresh file and may be closed as D. Dis. The Superintending Engineer who took over subsequently, initiated action in the matter and recovered the amount due from M/s. Ruchi. Therefore, it is alleged that the conduct of the petitioner keeping the file for two years without taking action caused undue gain to M/s. Ruchi and therefore, he has contravened clause 3(1)(i) (ii) of the Conduct Regulations In respect of the second charge it is stated that M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. was allotted a plot by the Chennai Port on six occasions from 20.5.1998 to 1999 and thereafter, have been allowed to operated without any specific permission issued by the Chennai Port Trust. It is stated that permission was granted for the period from 10.7.1998 to 9.7.1999 and after this period without any specific permission or agreement M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. has been using the plot till 2005. It is further stated that there was a short fall in export from M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. during the period 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003 and they made exports during the said period and they had made a short fall in export for which an amount of Rs. 87,79,269.60 was leviable. When a demand was issued to M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. to pay, they refused to comply with the demand, stating that there are no agreements in force after 1998 -99 and also refused to execute any agreement, with retrospective effect. Thus, M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. continued to operate the plot without any agreement or order of allotment and they have failed to pay the short fall owing to which the charge was issued to the petitioner for having failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss of Rs. 87,79,269.60 and contravened the Conduct Regulations.