N. ANTONY Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 1st and 2nd respondent and quash the order of the 1st respondent dtd. 23/3/2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE insofar as treating the period from 27/4/2004 till the reinstatement of the petitioner viz., 23/3/2016 as "Dies Non" and declining promotional benefits and the order of the 2nd respondent dtd. 22/5/2018 bearing No.CME/A1/5506/95/MEE as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to pay the back wages from 27/4/2004 onwards till 23/3/2016 being the date when the order of reinstatement was issued with continuity of service, attendant benefits and by granting due promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) from the date when the junior of the petitioner was granted promotion with all monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner joined in the service of the respondent Port Trust as Assistant Engineer on 25/11/1986. In the year 1995, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the Port Trust dtd. 12/12/1995 followed by a charge memo dtd. 17/10/1996 issued against the petitioner. The charges relate to the period of the year 1995. Two charges were framed against the petitioner, pursuant to which departmental enquiry was conducted. Simultaneously that was reported before the police for prosecuting the case against the petitioner and on the criminal side prosecution had taken place, where charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the departmental proceedings concluded, where the charges framed against the petitioner were proved following which the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty against the petitioner by order dtd. 22/3/1998 under which the penalty of cutting increment for three years was imposed against the petitioner. That punishment also was undergone by the petitioner.

(3.) Subsequently, after trial the criminal case was completed, where the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of the criminal Court dtd. 4/2/2004. In view of the said conviction, the petitioner's services was terminated ie., he was dismissed from service with effect from 27/4/2004.