R EGAMBARAM Vs. CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the same person, who is working as Store Supervisor at Chennai port Trust.

(2.) W. P. NO. 2097 of 2006 is filed challenging the order of the second respondent, the Controller of Stores, chennai Port Trust dated 28. 06. 2005, under which the second respondent has imposed a punishment withholding one increment for one year with cumulative effect, instead of withholding two increments for one year with cumulative effect.

(3.) THE second respondent has issued a charge-memo against the petitioner on 21. 01. 2004, alleging that the petitioner was missing from the work spot on 21. 01. 2004 from 10. 30 hours to 12. 00 hours and behaved in an indisciplined manner to the superior officers. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 03. 02. 2004 by his subsequent letter dated 28. 04. 2004 addressed to the deputy Chairman, Chennai Port Trust. He requested permission to avail the services of one D. Purushothaman in the enquiry, which was not permitted. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted and witness were examined and on the request of the petitioner the copy of the movement register was also supplied to him containing the entry on 21. 01. 2004. The copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer dated 24. 01. 2005 was sent to the petitioner by the second respondent by his communication dated 14. 02. 2005 asking the petitioner to give his remark. The second respondent by order dated 23. 02. 2005, accepting the enquiry officer's report, finding that the petitioner has committed misconduct under Part V, Section 8 (a) (iv) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' CCA Regulationd 1988, has awarded punishment of withholding two increments for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner on 01. 04. 2005 has filed an application to the Deputy Chairman, Chennai port Trust against the said order dated 23. 03. 2005 and the deputy Chairman, who is the Controller of Stores (in-charge) has passed an order dated 28. 06. 2005, by modifying his earlier order of punishment to one of withholding one increment for one year with cumulative effect, instead of withholding two increments for one year with cumulative effect. It is this order of the second respondent which is challenged by the petitioner.