Madras High Court
A.Ayyasami vs The Chairman on 19 April, 2022
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
A.Ayyasami ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the
respondent in order dated 04.11.2020 vide order No.V4/264/2017/Vig and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
For Respondent : Mr.P.M.Subramanian
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the
respondent in order dated 04.11.2020 vide order No.V4/264/2017/Vig and to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
2.Brief facts of the case:
(a).While the petitioner was working as Material Manager, in the
respondent Port Trust, on 03.11.2016, the Chairman of the respondent Port
Trust has sanctioned for disposal and removal of top layer of ore fines at BD-
II through an E-Auction to be conducted by the auctioneer, M/s.MSTC
Limited, Chennai, who is a Government of India Enterprise appointed by the
Chennai Port Trust. The Chief Mechanical Engineer engaged the Valuer and
the Valuer has submitted the valuation report in a confidential sealed cover.
(b).Thereafter, as per the instructions, the writ petitioner had vetted the
draft proposal before forwarding it to the Chief Mechanical Engineer for
approval and the same has been approved on 07.12.2016 and forwarded to
FA & CAO. Thereafter, FA & CAO concurred with the proposal on
19.12.2016 duly endorsing that as per the conditions, if the lot fetches 100%
of the reserve price, it will be declared as confirmed lot and the same was
forwarded to Deputy Chairman. The Deputy Chairman of the respondent Port
Trust also approved on 22.12.2016 and the same was forwarded to the first
respondent. On perusal of the aforesaid proposal, the respondent as the nodal
officer/competent authority has approved the proposal and forwarded to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
auction committee on 23.12.2016 and the auction was fixed on 27.12.2016
and auction deferred to 30.12.2016. On that day, the auction was conducted
and the auction conducting committee has opened the sealed cover submitted
by the respondent and M/s.SYR Infrastructure, was the highest bidder and
the same was forwarded to the Chairman of the Port Trust for approval and
the chairman has approved the said tender in favour of M/s.SYR
infrastructure.
(c).Thereafter, the respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings by
framing the charge memo as against the petitioner alleging that he has role in
wrongful computation of low reserve price, acceptance of Valuation Report
and not entering into an integrity pact agreement with the highest bidder and
thereby, loss was caused to the Port Trust and the said charge memo was
served to the petitioner on 25.07.2019. The respondent has appointed an
enquiry officer on 23.10.2019 to enquire into the charges framed against the
petitioner. On 29.01.2020 the enquiry officer without summoning, any other
witnesses posted the matter for final hearing and reserved the matter for
orders on the same day and further directed the petitioner to file written
submissions. On 15.03.2020 the petitioner has placed the written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
submissions and arguments before the Enquiry Officer and the matter was
reserved for orders. Thereafter on 27.07.2020, the respondent again without
seeing the brazen conflict of interest, forwarded the Enquiry Report and also
directed to file written submissions. Thereafter, on 25.08.2020 the petitioner
has sent a letter to the respondent by stating that the respondent had fixed the
reserved price. Without considering the same, thereafter, the respondent has
passed impugned punishment order against the writ petitioner by imposing
penalty of withdrawal of pension payable to the petitioner by 60 % for a
period of 60 months and also reduction of Gratuity payable to the petitioner
by 60% with immediate effect, under Regulation 56, Chennai Port Trust
/(Pension) Regulations, 1987. Hence, the writ petition.
3(a).The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner had vetted the draft proposal before the forwarding to the Chief
Mechanical Engineer for approval and the same has been approved by one
P.Raveendran, Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust for conducting the E-
Auction and the same Chairman has now passed the impugned order by
imposing the punishment on the petitioner and therefore, no person can judge
on his own opinion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
3(b).Next contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that in the
petitioner's reply dated 05.08.2019, the petitioner had described his role in the
entire process leading to the auction and also stated that the respondent only
fixed the reserved price. Without considering the same, the respondent has
appointed an Enquiry Officer and based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the
respondent has passed the impugned order of punishment against the
petitioner and thereafter, initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner by same officer would not get any justice for the petitioner. It will
be a bias on the part of the respondent. Therefore, he seeks for the quashing
of the said proceedings.
3(c).The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
(i) 1968 (3) WLR 694 – Metropolitan Properties Co.(F.G.C) Ltd.
Vs.Lannon and others,
(ii) 1974 (3) SCC 459 – S.Parthasarathi Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, and
(iii).2016(12) SCC 204 – Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana
& ors.
and in the light of the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the impugned punishment order passed by the respondent is liable to be set
aside.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the respondent has framed the charges and the petitioner has
appeared before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has submitted his
report to the respondent and based on the report, the punishment order has
been passed against the writ petitioner.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
6.On a perusal of the records, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner has vetted the draft proposal before
forwarding the same to the Chief Mechanical Engineer and the same has been
approved by CME and thereafter, a final proposal along with the valuation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
report was sent to FA & CAO, Deputy Chairman and to the P.Raveendran,
Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust and the said draft proposal has been
approved by the Chairman and forwarded to the Auction Conducting
Committee and subsequent to approval E-auction was fixed on 27.12.2016
and it was deferred and conducted by the auction committee on 30.12.2016
and the auction conducting committee opened the sealed cover approved by
the valuer one day before the auction and thereafter, the final award has been
passed in favour of the SYR infrastructure by the auction commitee.
Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner is baseless and without any
materials.
7.Further, before uploading the reserve price of Rs.400/- per MT fixed
by the independent valuer, M/s.M.C.Jain & Associates had failed to compare
the reserve price of Rs.400/- per MT with the earlier reserve price of Rs.950/-
per MT fixed by them for the E-Auction held on 10.08.2016 and that he had
failed to realise the drastic slash in the reserve price and therefore, based on
the above lapses, charge memo has been framed against the writ petitioner
and the respondent has imposed punishment order against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
8.Further, according to the petitioner the draft proposal has been
approved by the respondent/Chairman of Port Trust and based on that, the
auction has been conducted. Therefore, he attributing bias as against the
aforesaid P.Raveendran, Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust.
9.Further, it is seen that the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has stated that the said Chairman, has denied the said allegation
of the petitioner and stated that the chairman has nothing to do with the
aforesaid reserved price fixed for the aforesaid auction. Therefore, the said
Chairman has passed the final order by imposing the punishment as against
the petitioner based on the enquiry report. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel for the respondent the allegation of the petitioner is untenable and the
same is liable to be rejected.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016(12) SCC 204 –
Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its
Secretary/Mahaprandhak & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & ors.
wherein, in Clause (ii) of paragraph No.15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
held as follows:
15.(ii).If an officer is a witness to any of the
incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if
the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then
in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If
the said position becomes known after the appointment
of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should
be taken to see that the task of holding an enqiry is
assigned to some other officer.
Therefore, the present case on hand the then Chairman of the Port Trust is an
approval authority of the draft proposal and the same authority has passed the
punishment order.
11.In the light of the facts as well as considering the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case on hand, the allegation of the
petitioner that the said disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner
and imposing punishment order attributes bias as against the then Chairman
of the Port Trust.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
12.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Chennai Port Trust
would fairly stated before this Court that now the new incumbent has taken
charge of the respondent Port Trust.
13.Considering the said fact and following the decisions of this Court
as cited supra, this Court is of the view that for tendering the fair enquiry for
the aforesaid charges alleged against the petitioner are proper for the present
incumbent Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings and to pass final orders after providing the
opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law and accordingly, this
Court is inclined to pass the following order:
(i).The impugned order passed by the respondent is hereby quashed
and remitted back to the respondent.
(ii).If any additional particulars or request, the petitioner shall make
such request before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii)The respondent is directed to consider the same afresh and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after providing
opportunity to the petitioner within a period of four months from thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
(iv).If the petitioner seeks terminal benefits, it is for him to approach
authority concerned by making independent application.
(v).Any observation made in this matter will not influence the authority
concerned to take final decision.
14.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dua
Note: Issue order copy on 29.07.2022
To
The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dua
W.P.No.17532 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.21721 of 2020
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
