Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
DIG K. Janardhanan C/o. Sri. MPG Nambiar – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented By The Secretary – Respondents
WP(C) No. 30634 of 2017
Decided On : 13-01-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam) SMT. A.V. Indira, SRI. Johnson Gomez, Smt. Uthara A.S
For the Respondent: Sri. N.S. Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, CGC
IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that the Coast Guard Court has jurisdiction over service-related matters and upheld the dismissal of the petitioner due to negligence resulting in loss of life, emphasizing Command Responsibility.
Headnote:
(A) Coast Guard Act, 1978 - Sections 53, 58, 71, 114, and 117 - Judicial review against Coast Guard Court findings - The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General of the Coast Guard, challenged his dismissal and imprisonment following a collision incident involving a fishing boat. The court upheld the dismissal, citing the doctrine of Command Responsibility and the severity of consequences from the incident. (Paras 1, 10, 12, 23)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - The court affirmed that while court-martial proceedings are subject to judicial review, they are not under the superintendence of the High Court unless procedural safeguards are violated. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed after a collision incident where a fishing boat sank, resulting in the loss of six fishermen's lives. The Coast Guard Court found him guilty of negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to take appropriate action post-incident and upheld the dismissal as justifiable.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the trial, jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Coast Guard Court had jurisdiction over the matter and that the petitioner's responsibility as a Commander warranted the punishment imposed.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working as the Deputy Inspector General of the Coast Guard, has filed the captioned writ petition challenging:
i. Ext.P18, by which the Coast Guard Court imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and six months simple imprisonment on the petitioner.
ii. Ext.P20, by which the petitioner's name has been struck off from the Coast Guard rolls.
iii. Ext.P22, by which the sentence imposed as above is reduced to one of dismissal from service alone; and
iv. Ext.P25, by which the statutory petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the sentence passed by the Coast Guard Court stood rejected by the Government of India.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under.
The petitioner states that he entered the service of the Coast Guard as an Assistant Commandant in 1987, having been awarded the Tatrakshak Medal by the President of India for his meritorious service in the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard built a new vessel named “Vaibhav”(hereinafter referred to as the “vessel”) from Goa Shipyard Ltd., and the petitioner was posted as the Commanding Officer (Designate) of the afore new vessel. In the line of commissioning the afore vessel, two familiarization sorties (one day-time and one night-time) were scheduled. During the course of the night-time sortie on 24.04.2013, the vessel was provided with an additional mission of sailing up to Malpe. The petitioner contends that when the vessel was coming back in the early hours of 25.04.2013, it brushed upon a fishing boat; however, no injury/damage was noticed to the fishing boat. Therefore, the petitioner says that the Coast Guard vessel proceeded back to Goa as scheduled without stopping, and the incident was reported to the higher-ups once the vessel reached Goa port. By Ext.P2 communication, the Boat Owners Association informed the Goa Coast Guard about the afore incident, leading to a few of the fishermen on board the fishing boat going missing. On the afore basis, the Board of Inquiry was constituted. Ext.P5 is the FIR filed in the local police station in Goa and later transferred to Yellow Gate Police Station, Mumbai on account of the territorial limits. The Board of Inquiry submitted Ext.P6 report containing 13 charges. Though Ext.P7 charge sheet is filed by the Mumbai Police before the Criminal Court, Mumbai, on an application filed by the Coast Guard, the Magistrate, through Ext.P8, transferred the crime to Cost Guard Court. On the basis of the afore, Ext.P10 charge sheet was served on the petitioner containing as many as 12 charges. The Coast Guard Court was later constituted pursuant to Ext.P16 order and Ext.P17 charge sheet was filed. By Ext.P18, the Coast Guard Court found the petitioner guilty of 7 charges and imposed the punishment noticed as above. By Ext.P20, the petitioner’s name is struck off from the rolls and by Ext.P22, the sentence passed by the Coast Guard Court is modified as one of dismissal from service alone. The statuary petition filed is also rejected as noticed above, through Ext.P25.
3. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
4. I have heard Sri. C. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Dhayasindhu Sreehari, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
5. Sri. Unnikrishnan, after making extensive reference to the documents forming part of the paper book and various statutes, contends that:
i. The withdrawal of the criminal case pursuant to Ext.P8 to the Cost Guard Court was without jurisdiction.
ii. The deputation of an officer of the same rank and two years junior to the petitioner for preparing the Record of Evidence was illegal and arbitrary.
iii. None of the authorities could conclude that the Coast Guard vessel “Vaibhav” collided with the fishing boat in question.
iv. In Ext.P15 Inquiry Report of the Mercantile Marine Department (MMD) there is not even a single finding against the petitioner, whereas t
