1 wp 1400-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1400 OF 2011 Rajkumar Chhawri ...Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. Mr.Satendra Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr.Vinod Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 P.C :- 1 The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed as under :- “ a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling upon the Respondents to produce the records pertaining to the Orders dated 4th March 2011 and 11th May 2011 passed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 respectively and after examining the legality and proprietary thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned Orders; b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the orders 2 wp 1400-2011 dated 4th March 2011 and 11th May 2011 passed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 respectively.” 2 By the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by Chief Examiner of Engineers of Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, the competency certificate No.95W-5593 issued to the petitioner has been suspended for a period of one year with effect from 4th March, 2011. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Director General of Shipping and Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. 3 The petitioner is holder of the abovestated certificate of competency as Marine Engineer Officer, Class-I (Motors). The said certificate has been issued to the petitioner by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 76 to 78 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The petitioner by virtue of said competency certificate entered into Seaman’s Employment Contract with Navig 8 Ship Management Pte.Ltd. for position of Chief Engineer of the vessel m.t. STENA FR8. The vessel was having the flag of Marshall Islands. The employment contract was for a period of four months. 4 It was alleged against the petitioner that on one of the voyages of the said vessel from Amsterdman to Lagos, the petitioner had indulged into 3 wp 1400-2011 sea swimming and gave verbal order to his Engineering staff to take part in sea swimming on 21st May, 2010. He also omitted to log down in official logbook of details of stoppage of main engine. It was also alleged that the petitioner made a wrong statement before the Director General of Shipping vide letter dated 23rd February, 2011 and had withdrawn the same subsequently on enquiry. 5 The Marshall Islands’ documentation of the petitioner was suspended for a period of twelve months by the Maritime Administrator, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, on account of the said mis-conduct on board the vessel m.t. STENA FR8. The Chief Examiner of Engineers, Government of India, upon due inquiry had come to the conclusion that the acts on the part of the petitioner amounted to misconduct and tentamounting to incompetence and therefore, the competency certificate had been suspended for a period of one year. The Chief Engineer was also of the view that the act of the petitioner could have resulted into personal injury, death or even shipping casualty. 6 The petitioner alleges that no inquiry was held and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent and as such, the rules of natural justice have not been followed. It was, therefore, prayed that 4 wp 1400-2011 this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may quash and set aside the orders dated 4th March, 2011 and 11th May, 2011. 7 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length and we have gone through the xerox copies of the documents enclosed to the petition. From the submissions made before us and the documents enclosed to the petition, one thing is abundantly clear and is not denied that the petitioner had indulged into sea swimming and that he had stopped the main engine. In fact, it was admitted by the petitioner that when main engine of the vessel was stopped, he and other engine staff members had indulged into sea swimming and that logging down was not done in the official logbook. 8 Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was reluctant to stop the main engine. Whatever was done by the petitioner was due to command by the Master of the Ship. It is submitted that it was the duty of the Duty Engineer to log down in the official logbook that the main engine was stopped. 9 We do not want to go into the details of the duty of Chief 5 wp 1400-2011 Engineer and the Duty Engineer. One thing is very clear that the petitioner had indulged into dangerous act of swimming in the sea after stopping the main engine of the vessel. It could not be the defence that he did it due to command by Master of the ship. The petitioner was given competency certificate by Indian authorities and therefore, he has to abide by the terms and conditions of the certificate. If the authorities had found him guilty of mis-conduct which is apparent on the record itself, we are of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court. 10 After careful examination of documents and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that the defence taken by the petitioner is not at all acceptable. He cannot run away from his duty under the guise of so called orders of Master of the ship. We do not find merits in this petition. The petition needs to be dismissed summarily. 11 Order accordingly. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)