- (1.) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner against cancellation of his registration as a Seaman and a further order dated 1st June, 1966 passed in revision. The petitioner's case, briefly, is as follows :
(2.) HE was registered in the Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta as a seaman in the category of Pantrymate on March 13, 1956 and by gradual promotion he became a General Steward on May 14, 1957. During a voyage while the ship was in New York Port, he was fined Rs. 184. 54 by the Customs authorities there as he was found to have been in possession of 2 ozs. of marijuana (ganja) in contravention of customs Regulations. For this at the end of his voyage he was referred to the disciplinary committee by the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, calcutta by his memo dated June 24, 1965. He submitted an explanation but the disciplinary Committee could not take any unanimous decision, the matter was referred to the Director General of Shipping who in his turn directed the Disciplinary Committee for its fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by him. Upon this the Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on February 3, 1966 by a majority decision recommended cancellation of the petitioner's registration. Accordingly, the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta, respondent no. 3, cancelled his registration as a seaman.
(3.) THEN the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director General of Shipping, respondent No. 2 who without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and has come up to this Court and obtained the present Rule. Upon these facts a number of grounds were taken but Mr. Habibullah, learned Advocate for the petitioner raised the following points: (i) The petitioner was not involved in any case of smuggling and therefore, the order passed for cancellation of his registration as a Seaman was entirely invalid, (ii) The Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta, respondent No. 3, did not apply his mind at all but passed the order for cancellation of the petitioner's registration as a Seaman on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee which is not permitted either under the Act or under the Rules, (iii) The Disciplinary Committee even not having- proceeded independently but having taken advice from the Director General of Shipping, its entire recommendation for cancellation of the petitioner's registration was invalid. (iv) The order passed by the appellate authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is bad in law. ;