TARUN KUMAR CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated December 9, 1987 passed by the then Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against such compulsory retirement which was rejected. At the time when the said Order was passed, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Executive Engineer. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said Order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules is illegal and without jurisdiction and the said Rule 56(J) has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further contended that the said Order has been passed maliciously behind the back of the petitioner without observing the fundamental principles of natural justice, fair play and equitable justice and particularly overlooking and ignoring the material facts regarding the efficiency and credibility of the petitioner during his long service career. The contention of the petitioner is that the compulsory retirement in this case means victimisation without there being any justification. It is further contended that the said Order of compulsory retirement has been made in violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules as no Review Committee was appointed six months before the petitioner attained the age of 50 years. It is further contended that the specific act of misconduct has been concocted or manufactured for the oblique reason to retire the petitioner compulsorily.

(2.) It is contended by the Respondents that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the case of the employees of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, as the Fundamental Rules were adopted by the Commissioners of the Port of Calcutta with all its amendments by Resolution No. 270 passed at the meeting of the Commissioners dated March 20, 1984. This was duly sanctioned by the Central Government. It is also contended by the respondents that the records produced would show that sufficient materials were before the Review Committee to arrive at the decision to compulsorily retire the writ petitioner. It has also been contended there is a right of appeal and the petitioner also preferred an appeal which was rejected. It was submitted that after the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, it was merged into the order of the Appellate Authority and unless it can be shown that the order of the Appellate Authority is defective in law, the petitioner is not entitiled to succeed.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the backgrounds of this case. Sometime in the month of July, 1960 petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer by the Calcutta Port Trust (previously Calcutta Port Commissioners). He was promoted to the post of Junior Executive Engineer in September, 1965 and was posted at Durgachawk, Haldia for commencement of the Haldia Dock Project along with other ancillary works. The petitioner was thereafter again promoted to the post of Senior, Executive Engineer in March, 1975. The petitioner was considered for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer in terms of the recommendations made by the Competent Authority in February, 1987. There was no adverse report and/or remark made during the long tenure of service and no communication whatsoever was ever made at any point of time till the date of the order of compulsory retirement. Throughout his long service tenure for more than 27 years, the petitioner contended that he had been discharging his duties and functions attached to the posts efficiently, honestly and sincerely. He was successful in using unconventional materials for the first time in the construction of Noorpur Spurs River Hooghly and he published a paper on the said subject in the Irrigation and Power Journal, Government of India. As Senior Executive Engineer the petitioner took charge of final dock basin dredging work at Haldia Dock sometime in 1975 and he completed the work within the stipulated time schedule and earned a rebate of Rs. 90 lakhs for the Port Trust from the Dredging Corporation of India. The petitioner was often assigned with important assignments which were carried into execution to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The petitioner's article on the subject of "Development of manually usable composite materials for use in River Graining Work in the Hoogly Estuary" was highly appreciated and accepted by the Institute of Engineers (India). The petitioner attended his office and discharged his duties and functions on both December 9 & 10, 1987. On December 10, 1987 suddenly the petitioner was served with an order dated December 9, 1987, issued by the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules purporting thereby to retire the petitioner from service compulsorily with effect from the forenoon of December 10, 1987 and a cheque of three months pay, in lieu of notice was enclosed therewith. Petitioner was left with about 6 years to attain the normal age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Petitioner was never communicated and/or served with any communication adverse to the interest of the Calcutta Port Trust.