GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Vs. MD ABBAS MOHIDDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein is a B.Tech (Mechanical) and joined the services of Coast Guard as Assistant Commandant (Technical) in Class I Group on 6.8.1989 and on completion of training and probation, he served on various coast guard ships in Western command and thereafter joined Eastern Command on board C.G.S.Jijabai at Paradeep, Orissa on 12.8.1993. It is the case of the respondent herein that when he was the Technical Officer in the said ship, on 18.10.1994, the Commanding Officer E.D.Anand Kumar/the 5th appellant herein seized two Taiwan Trawlers, which are in international water, and looted them and decided to apprehend the trawlers and bring them to Indian waters and boarded the trawlers that the Commanding Officer/the 5th appellant herein sent two boarding parties, one led by Assistant Commandant Bhatacharya and the other led by Assistant Commandant Praveen Gaur that the boarding party led by Assistant Commandant Praveen Gaur looted the Thai trawler, which they boarded at the instruction of the Commanding Officer and the boarding party led by the Assistant Commandant Bhattacharya brought the trawler intact to Paradeep Port and Praveen Gaur carried out the instructions of the Commanding Officer and looted the Thai Trawler and thereafter it was taken to Paradeep Port on 19.10.1994, which was stiffly objected to by the respondent and he also opposed when the incomplete seizure list was given to the Paradeep Police Station on 19.10.1994. This strong objection of the respondent for the illegal acts committed by the 5th appellant has irked the 5th appellant and therefore, he plotted to send the respondent out of Paradeep and on 2.10.1994, the respondent was sent to Madras for participating in the Eastern Region games and while the respondent was still in Madras, a telex message was sent to the respondent by the Commanding Officer/the 5th appellant, granting leave for the respondent, even though the respondent has never applied for the same and during the absence of the respondent, a new firm Rajan Engineers was introduced by the 5th appellant to do the maintenance work of the ship even though the said firm has no workshop or background to do this kind of work.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that while things stood thus, the 5th appellant has forwarded the annual confidential report of the respondent for the period November, 1993 to October, 1994, with adverse remarks on 10.11.1994. IT is the case of the respondent/workman that since his marriage was fixed on 4.4.1995, he applied for leave for 26 days on 27.3.1995, but even before completion of the leave, a telegram was sent to his residence to join immediately and therefore, he reported to duty on 17.4.1995. IT is his strong case that in the farewell party to one Dr.Mishra of C.I.S.F. In the Paradeep Port on 10.4.1995, the 5th appellant had made a statement that 'Abbas will be court martialled'.

(3.) HOWEVER, thereafter, once again, another charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 30.7.1996, with the following charges: Table