R N CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is in the employment of the Calcutta Port Trust for last 25 years, now posted in River training Wing of the Calcutta Port Trust as Junior Executive Engineer.

(2.) HE has also been duly elected the President of the Engineer Officers' Association, a registered body which was recognised by the Calcutta Port authority. By resolution dated 3rd May, 1989, the members of the said Association resolved and empowered the President to write letter to safeguard the interest and object of the said Association. After such resolution the petitioner wrote a letter dated 16th May, 1989 addressed to the minister of Surface Transport, Ministry of Transport (Port Wing), New Delhi with a copy forwarded to the Prime Minister of India, the Secretary (Ports), Ministry of Transport, New Delhi, the Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal, the Chief Secretary Government of West Bengal and the deputy Secretary (Ports) Ministry of Transport Department, of Surface transport, Government of India. Several representations were made to the authority concerned for the last two years in connection with the improvement of draft and filling up of the senior position in Haldia/calcutta through professionally qualified Hydraulic and Harbour Engineers of Calcutta Port trust but without any effect. The letter in question sent by the petitioner as the President of the Association was written to the higher authorities in order to see that the proper procedure is followed to prevent any further loss of money by unwanted steps taken without considering the persons who have got particular sites experience would be in a position to give proper advise upon discussion. Save as aforesaid there was no intention to write such letter and as such any allegations contrary thereto and inconsistent therewith are denied emphatically. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum being No. 7806/con/ce/5 dated 15th June, 1989 charging him that he is guilty of an offence under Clause 17 of the Calcutta port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1987 violating the said clause as indicated below in the said charge-sheet :

(3.) IN the said Memorandum it was directed to submit an answer to the said charge within a fortnight from the receipt there of. By the letter dated 24th June, 1989 the Respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was appointed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on the charge meted out against him before the expiration of the fortnight time as earlier given to submit his explanation. On 27th June, 1989 the petitioner duly submitted his- explanation to the charge alleged to have been made against him denying each and every allegations made therein and draw the attention that the clause 17 of the concerned Regulation cannot be said to be applicable on the basis of the facts disclosed nor there are any ingredients to bring home the charge under clause 17 by any stretch of imagination in the scope and ambit of the said clause. The letter in question would not reveal in any manner whatsoever that the said letter was written to the authorities concerned for the benefit and gain of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and as such the petitioner claims that the relevant portion of the letter indicates that was not for his personal gain and to achieve his ambition for any higher post and in any other gain as sought to be suggested. It is an undeniable fact that the said letter was written to enable the authorities concerned to take proper steps in the matter having had discussion and exchange of views of the Engineers who are working and familiar with the locality and etc. After getting the Charge Memo the same was forwarded to the Association for necessary observation and on getting the charge-memo the Association wrote a letter on July 3. 1989 addressed to the Chairman and forwarded the copy of the same to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10.