JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bombay Port Trust-on July 10, 1968 as a tally clerk. The second respondent is the Chairman and the third respondent is the Docks Manger of the Bombay Port Trust. In the year 1975, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. He was suspended from duty on November 3, 1980 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case which was pending against him. The alleged incident of theft of ball bearings valued at Rs. 1,800/- had taken place on October 31st, 1980. However, he was acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballar Estate, Bombay by his judgment and order dated April 30, 1981 of the charge of theft punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, he was allowed to rejoin the service on May 7, 1981. Then, a charge-sheet was issued to him on August 11, 1982 on the allegations that on October 31, 1980 at about 11.45 a.m. he was bound in possession of a rexin bag containing ball bearings valued at Rs. 1,800/- for which he could not given satisfactory account and thus he committed misconduct of attempt to commit theft and dishonesty in connection with property lying in the care and custody of the Bombay Port Trust and further that on the same day he should have ordinarily been in the office till 5.00 p.m. but he left the duty at about 11.30 a.m. without permission and did not turn up upto 5.00 p.m. and thus he committed an Act subversive of discipline. He replied to the said charge-sheet by a letter dated September 14, 1982. He was intimated on February 15, 1984 that an enquiry would be held against him. Accordingly, an enquiry was be held against him. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and a show cause notice as to punishment was issued to him on January 10, 1985. He filed reply thereto on February 18, 1985. Thereafter, an order of punishment of compulsory retirement was served on him on October 1, 1986. He filed an appeal on October 8, 1986 before the second respondent. His appeal was rejected on May 7, 1987. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No. 2526 of 1987 in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which an order was passed on September 2, 1987 that the appellate authority (second respondent) should pass a speaking order. Thereafter, on April 26, 1988 the second respondent once again rejected his appeal. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition on July 26, 1988.

2. It may be mentioned here that no return was filed on behalf of the respondent opposing this writ petition.

3. Now, admittedly the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Regulation 3(1) of the Bombay Port Trust Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which reads : "General" - Every employee shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty".

4. The first contention raise by Mr. Cama on behalf of the petitioner is that the above said regulation does not lay down a listed misconduct on the basis of which a charge-sheet could be issued. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the heading of this regulation shows that it is "general" Act in which an employee should not indulge and what is "general" cannot constitute a misconduct because misconduct should be specified in the regulation itself as a particular misconduct and when one puts a certain "Act in general" it only means that it was not a specific misconduct. According to Mr. Cama, general Act is only desirable characteristic of a public servant.

5. There is lot of force in the contention of Mr. Cama. A similar point had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in (A.L. Korla v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.)1, 1984 Lab.I.C. 961, in which Their Lordship of the Supreme Court were interpreting Rule 4(1)(i) and (ii) read with Rule 5(5) of the P.T.C. Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules when it was pointed out that "the gravamen of the two heads of charges is that the appellant is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document