Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, cannot be applied in its entirety to retired employees of the Calcutta Port, as it is inconsistent with their service conditions and the Port Authorities lack the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such employees under the said rule.

( 1 ) PARTHUL Chand Mahindar, the petitioner herein had been employed as a Harbour Master (River) in the Port of Calcutta till the 24th March 1973 when he retired on superannuation. At the material time, the Port of Calcutta was managed and was under the control of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, a local authority incorporated under the Calcutta Port Act, 1908. The Calcutta Port Act, 1908 was replaced by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 which was made applicable to the Port of Calcutta in 1974. Under the Act of 1963 the persons in the management of the Port of Calcutta are the trustees.

( 2 ) UNDER cover of a letter, dated the 27th July, 1976 a charge sheet contained in a memorandum, also dated the 23rd July, 1976 was served on the petitioner, stating that it was proposed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner was charged with having committed gross misconduct during the year 1972-73 while functioning as Harbour Master (River) of the Calcutta Port by having failed to maintained absolute integrity and having acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Port Commissioner as he had issued false certificates dated the 27th July, 1972 to two Master Pilots of the Calcutta Port to the effect that had been appointed as Branch Pilot (Grade-1) on the strength of which the said Master Pilots obtained training the Indian Reserve for future appointments. It was alleged that by the aforesaid conduct, petitioner had contravened Rule 3 (i) of the Calcutta Port Commissioners Officers' (Conduct) Rules, 1971. A statement containing particulars of the allegations made against the petitioner was enclosed with the said charge sheet.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto, on the 4th August 1976, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Director, Marine Department asking, inter alia, for inspection of relevant documents and for permission for obtaining copies of the same. The petitioner asked for time to submit his reply to the said charges for a fortnight from the date after the records were made available. The petitioner also asked for the Calcutta Port Commissioners' Officers (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Subsequent thereto, an order, dated the 18th August 1976 was served on the petitioner informing him that one Joyaker P. Johnson, Ex Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission (Government of India) had been appointed to enquire into he charges preferred against the petitioner and one S. C. Bose. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Calcutta was nominated to present the case before the Inquiring Officer.

( 4 ) THE Director, Marine Department of the Calcutta Port Commissioners under cover of his letter dated the 26th August 1976 the matters forwarded to the petitioner a communication from the Enquiring Officer dated the 21st August 1976 informing the petitioner that the preliminary hearing of the case had been fixed on the 21st September 1976 at New Delhi which the petitioner was directed to attend. It was stated that failing his attendance the enquiry will proceed ex-parte. By a letter dated the 4th September 1976 the petitioner requested the Inquiring officer to permit him to take the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, on the 10th September 1976, the petitioner submitted a reply to the said charges contending, inter alia, that the charge sheet was silent as to under what Rules and Regulations of the Calcutta Port Act. the petitioner was being subjected to the said disciplinary proceedings though he was no longer an employee of the Calcutta Port. The petitioner also contended that he had not been given inspection of the documents as asked for. The petitioner contended further that the Major Port Trust Art, 1963 which came into effect from 1974 could not affect to rights and privileges to which he had became entitled prior to his retirement and that the said proceeding were wholly illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. The pe