SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79174

MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.Antony – Appellant
Versus
Chennai Port Trust – Respondent
WP 15695/2018



Advocates:
['M/S BALAN HARIDAS', '', 'R KAMATCHI SUNDARESAN', 'KARTHIKEYAN CGSC']

W.P.No.15695 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.07.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

Writ Petition No.15695 of 2018

N.Antony

….

Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Chennai Port Trust

Rep.by its Chairman

Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

2.Chief Mechanical Engineer

Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai

Chennai 600 001.

….

Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for

the issuance of 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 dated 23.03.2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE insofar as treating

the period from 27.04.2004 till the reinstatement of the petitioner viz.,

23.03.2016 as “Dies Non” and declining promotional benefits and the order of

the 2nd respondent dated 22.05.2018 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 27.04.2004 onwards till 23.03.2016 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

1 / 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15695 of 2018

promotion with all monetary benefits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Balan Haridas

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Karthikeyan

Central Government Standing Counsel

O R D E R

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 dated 23.03.2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE

insofar as treating the period from 27.04.2004 till the reinstatement of the

petitioner viz., 23.03.2016 as “Dies Non” and declining promotional benefits and

the order of the 2nd

respondent dated 22.05.2018 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 27.04.2004

onwards till 23.03.2016 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 / 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15695 of 2018

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 dated 12.12.1995 followed by a

charge memo dated 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 dated 22.03.1998 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 dated

04.02.2004. In view of the said conviction, the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top