MD ABBAS MOHIDDEN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL COAST GUARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order under Annexures -5 and 6 issued by the Director General, Coast Guard.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the petitioner's case is that he joined as Engineer Officer of the Coast Guardship 'Jijabai' on 12.8.1993, the headquarters being at Paradip in the State of Orissa. The petitioner went on leave on 27.3.95 till 17.4.95 for his marriage. According to the petitioner, a Board of Enquiry was held from 29.5.95 to 10.6.95 in Coast Guard Ship 'Jijabai' regarding the defects of machinery. After completion of the Board of Enquiry, the petitioner went for sailing in the said 'Jijabai Ship'. On being transferred from C.G.S. 'Jijabai', the petitioner joined at Coast Guard Station, Madras, Coast Guard Region (East) on 29.1.96. While the petitioner was continuing at the Coast Guard Region (East), Madras, the Commanding Officer of the said Coast Guard region directed in the letter under Annexure -1 to prepare record of evidence of tentative charges against the petitioner. A charge -sheet under Annexure -2 was also issued. Thereafter, the Director General, Coast Guard passed an order to convene a Coast Guard Court for trial of the petitioner under Annexure -3 dated 27.8.96. The petitioner had challenged the same in this Court by filing a writ petition in OJC No. 10043 of 1996. This writ application was disposed of vide order dated 6.4.98 with the direction that the petitioner would make a representation to the Director General, Coast Guard, within two weeks, which shall be disposed of by the concerned authority. It was further directed that till disposal of the representation, trial shall not proceed. It appears, after disposal of OJC No. 10043 of 1996, the Coast Guard Court was dissolved by the concerned authority under Annexure -4. Thereafter, charges were framed under Annexure -6 dated 10.8.99 and a Coast Guard Court was convened on 11.10.1999 under Annexure -5 by the Director General of Coast Guard. These two orders are under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders under Annexures -5 and 6 are bad in law, because there is mala fide exercise of power, and the entire proceeding has been conducted de hors the principle of NATURAL JUSTICE, The learned counsel also submits that the instant proceeding is barred by limitation in view of provisions contained in Section 51 of the Act. The learned Counsel in support of his contention with regard to mala fide, further submitted that as he was not pulling on well with his Commanding Officer, he has been victimised. Though he was on leave for a part of the charge -period, yet the proceeding has been initiated. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the proceeding has been concluded and has been kept in a sealed cover in view of the interim order passed by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the instant proceeding is not barred by limitation and a Coast Guard Court which is dissolved, can be constituted and the petitioner can be tried again under Sub -section (4) of Section 66 of the Act.