E SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a Vigilance Inspector of Visakhapatnam Port Trust mounting a challenge to the punishment of removal from service which was inflicted on him by the Deputy Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust by his orders dated 24.07.2012. The writ petitioner appears to have initially joined the service of the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board in 1982 as a clerk and subsequently was promoted as a Junior Assistant and further posted as a Vigilance Inspector by way of selection. The Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board has been merged with the Visakhapatnam Port Trust in the year 2008. The work carried out by the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board earlier is now handled by the Cargo Handling Division of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, headed by a Traffic Manager. The case of the petitioner is that, his services have come to be appreciated for his integrity and sincerity and in fact, as recently as on 26.01.2009 he was awarded a merit certificate in recognition of his services to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust.

(2.) One Smt. E. Sanyasamma was working as a sanitary khallasi in the Cargo Handling Division of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. She applied for voluntary retirement on 05.06.2010 under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme'. Her application was processed in the Cargo Handling Division and it was forwarded to the Vigilance Department for vigilance clearance. The application was marked by the Assistant Vigilance Officer to the petitioner on 17.06.2010. It was endorsed on the application that it is an urgent case to be processed. The petitioner verified as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against Smt. E. Sanyasamma. Upon verification of the concerned files, the petitioner prepared a note indicating that there are no cases pending against Smt. E. Sanyasamma and no action is also contemplated against her. The note prepared by the petitioner on 17.06.2010 was approved by the Chief Vigilance Officer and hence vigilance clearance was accorded. The vigilance clearance letter was directly handed over to the Junior Assistant of the Cargo Handling Division on 17.06.2010 and thereafter, the matter was placed for consideration of the Docks Manager. The Docks Manager in-turn passed an office order on 17.06.2010 accepting the offer for voluntary retirement of two candidates namely Sri R. Appa Rao and Smt. E. Sanyasamma. The offer of Smt. E. Sanyasamma was accepted with effect from 17.06.2010, but however, it has come to the notice of the respondents that Smt. E. Sanyasamma expired the previous evening itself and hence the acceptance order of her application for voluntary retirement has been immediately cancelled.

(3.) Suspecting that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of her illness and recommended the case for vigilance clearance for special voluntary retirement scheme benefits, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. A charge memorandum dated 08.10.2010 has been drawn against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under: