R M SHAH Vs. BOMBAY PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of his dismissal from service.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the petition are as follows : The petitioner was at the relevant time employed as a Foreman at Pipeline Manifold, Pir Pau with the Ist respondent, Bombay Port Trust. On receipt of complaints of misconduct by the petition he was suspended from service with effect from March 20, 1973. It appears that the Ist respondent had also handed over the investigation into the misconduct to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Thereafter on May 2, 1974, a chargesheet containing three charges was served upon the petitioner and an enquiry officer was appointed to hold an enquiry on June 25, 1974. Along with the letter appointing the enquiry officer it was also mentioned that one Mr. Pavade, an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation would act as a presenting officer at the time of the enquiry and one Mr. Singanamalli was designated as a co-ordinating officer. Thereafter on August 18, 1975 an additional chargesheet containing the 4th charge was served upon the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that the earlier enquiry officer Mr. Mavji retired from service and thereafter on September 11, 1975, a new enquiry officer Mr. Chowdhury was appointed to conduct the enquiry. It appears further that before the earlier inquiry officer Mr. Mavji two objections were raised on behalf of the petitioner, viz., that Mr. Pavade who was the police officer could not be presenting officer at the enquiry and that Mr. Singanamalli was a witness in the enquiry and he could not act as co-ordinating officer. Mr. Mavji rejected the first objection holding that there was nothing in the rule to prohibition a police officer from being a presenting office. He also held that is one of the enquiries held by him earlier, a police officer did act as a presenting officer. As regards the second objection he found that there was some substance and he wanted the chargesheeting authority, viz., the Chief Mechanical Engineer to consider the position with regard to Mr. Singanamalli. Mr. Mavji then adjourned the enquiry to a further date.