P J ANTONY Vs. DIRECTOR INTERGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Tribunal vide its order dated 1.10.1999 allowed the Original Application and quashed the orders impugned therein. The respondents had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 346/97 as per O.P. No. 4006/2000 and the Hon'ble High Court after hearing remitted the case back to the Tribunal with the following directions:-

(2.) The applicant in the O.A. has challenged the order of the 1st respondent against the recovery of an amount of Rs. 31,118/- from him after finding him guilty of misconduct. On appeal, the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.9.96 modified the said order and reduced the amount to Rs. 12,000/- as against Rs. 31,118/- ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. An O.A. was filed before this Tribunal contenting that Annexure A-20 and A-26 be quashed and prayed for the return of the amount recovered from his salary with 18% interest. The scope of remand is to adjudicate on a point by the Tribunal that the applicant is guilty of misconduct is supported by the materials on record. On the basis of the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Authority and if so, whether the order to recover an amount of Rs. 12,000/- is legal. In other words, deriving the proper conclusion of the above reference, the entire matter is to be reconsidered afresh.

(3.) THE applicant had filed an appeal against Annexure A-20 order before the Appellate Authority as per Annexure A-21, memo of Appeal. THE applicant requested for stay of recovery by letter dated 8.1.96 as Annexure A-22. But the 1st respondent ignored Annexure A-22 and started recovery from the salary for December, 1995 onwards. This Tribunal as per orders in O.A. 52/96 directed to limit the recovery to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month. Annexure A-23 is the argument notes submitted in the enquiry. It is submitted that the Surveyor report of Shri Simon has found that the Chief Engineer was not vigilant during his engine room duty on the day in question. THE Engineer of Bharathi Ship-Yard Ltd., who was the only person in the wheel house during that time. Applicant further sent a reminder on 27.7.96 and 10.7.96 as per Annexure A-24 and A-25. THE 3rd respondent had disposed off the appeal as per order dated 10.9.96 (Annexure A-26), and partly allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty of Rs. 31,118/- to Rs. 12,000/- entering into a finding that the collision had happened due to the negligence of the applicant. THE Appellate Authority found the applicant guilty on entirely new and extraneous materials and information. THE memo received by the applicant dated 4.8.95 was Annexure A-7 in which the Surveyor had warned the applicant for not keeping a person in the anchor position. THE applicant took the vessel only on the insistence of the 1st respondent by memo dated 18.8.95 as per Annexure A-28, A-29 and A-30. One of the submissions dated 8.11.95 (Annexure A-3) stating that it is unsafe and risk to take out the vessel. In Annexure A-32 memo dated 20.11.95, the 1st respondent even threatened to take disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. THE applicant was reverted as Mate, and a person who was 14 years junior to the applicant and who was a trainee under the applicant had been promoted as Skipper. THE applicant submitted a detailed explanation on 20.11.95 which was marked as Annexure A-34. Respondents dropped Annexure A-32. THEre was no negligence on the part of the applicant. THE 1st respondent had highly prejudiced the action of the applicant and victimised the applicant. THE allegations and malafides made against the 1st respondent were well found as per Annexure A-35 and A-36 will prove the same which were denied promotion to the applicant. Annexure A-37, A-38 and A-39 orders in O.A 162/95 filed for his promotion will prove the same. A copy of the statement dated 13.2.96 (Annexure A-40) and a copy of the extract of the log book entry dated 5.2.96 (Annexure A-41) will prove the case of the applicant and basing on these averments the applicant had sought the following reliefs:-