THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No.26473 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by Docks Manager of Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT), Visakhapatnam calling in question Charge Memo dated 24.11.2003 laid against him by the respondent – Visakhapatnam Port Trust, alleging that the writ petitioner while working as a Traffic Manager at Kandla Port Trust on deputation during the period from 4.10.1991 to 3.10.1995 issued incorrect/misleading/illegal and unauthorized letter to the President, M/s. Kandla Stevedores Association Limited to help its cause in winning the court case, without obtaining approval of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust and he went on deputation to Kandla Port Trust where he worked from 4.10.1991 to 3.10.1995 for a period of four years. During his tenure as a Traffic Manager there, he has issued a letter addressed to the Secretary, M/s. Kandla Stevedores Association Limited, New Kandla on 31.8.1994 regarding issuance of Stevedoring licence to 26 parties and their registration with the Kandla Dock Labour Board. He has informed that none of the 26 Stevedores is working inside the port as per the Kandla Dock Labour Board Regulations. This according to the respondent – Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the statement which is not factually correct and is containing misleading information. Hence, the charge sheet. I have heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Uma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to another letter which the writ petitioner has addressed to the Secretary, Kandla Stevedors Association, dated 24.10.199 which has been placed at page 41 of the paper book filed in support of the writ petition, wherein the writ petitioner has specifically invited the attention of the Secretary of Kandla Stevedores Association to his earlier letter dated 31.8.1994 and thereafter this is what he has observed. “…. On a detailed examination of the entire matter in consultation with the Kandla Dock Labour Board, it is found that the subject matter pertains to the Kandla Dock Labour Board. Further, there is no question of registration of Stevedores by the Kandla Dock Labour Board as per the provisions of the Central Government Notification No. LB – 13053/7/87 – L IV dated 3/3/1988, which read as under: `Persons who have been licenced to function as Stevedores by the competent authority of Kandla Port Trust shall be deemed to have been registered under the Scheme during the Currency of licence.’ In view of the above, I am withdrawing and canceling the aforesaid letter No. TF/GN/1201/461, dated 31.8.1994 issued by me. In case of any clarification/ information on the subject, you are requested to approach Kandla Dock Labour Board. The inconvenience caused in this regard is regretted.” He therefore contends that whatever the information that he has furnished to the Secretary of Kandla Stevedores Association Limited as on 31.8.1994 has been recalled by him as long as on 24.10.1994 itself. That is in less than two months period. Further, the writ petitioner has also observed that he had studied the matter subsequent to his letter dated 31.8.1994 and hence realized the error committed by him in his letter dated 31.8.1994. The writ petitioner has worked for yearly one year thereafter in Kandla Port Trust. His conduct then has not been found fault with. He has been recalled to the service of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust in October 1995. For nearly eight years thereafter, his conduct in issuing the said certificate was not found fault with. But, however, for the first time on 24.11.2003, an issue was sought to be made out of it and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that apart from lacking bona fides, the charge sheet also has inherently caused grave prejudice to the writ petitioner to defend himself properly and accurately all due to passage of long years of time. He therefore submits that the charge sheet deserves to be quashed for both reasons aforementioned. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would also contend that issuing the charge memo is a motivated act as some of the senior officers are not favourably inclined towards the writ petitioner as he was fast approaching for his turn of promotion to the next higher post. Per contra, Ms. Uma, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the disciplinary authority for Class I officers is the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. There is a change in the Office of the incumbency of the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust and an altogether new Chairman is functioning today and therefore there cannot be any animus attributed to the present incumbent by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the writ petitioner could have as well explained his entire stand by submitting a detailed explanation to the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, who could have taken a decision properly as to whether the disciplinary proceedings deserve to be proceeded any further or not. It is not as if the Chairman cannot appreciate the prejudice that would be visiting the petitioner all because of passage of long years of time between 1994 uptill now. It is one of the settled principles of law that prejudice should not be caused to a party in effectively defending himself in disciplinary proceedings. Human memory is not the same as that of a memory of a computer, for it to recall with necessary precision and detail the things that have happened over a long past. It was therefore always appropriate for prompt action to be initiated particularly in matters of disciplinary control. I have no doubt in my mind that the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust will bear this principle in mind and take an appropriate decision as to whether the disciplinary action initiated against the writ petitioner through the impugned charge memo deserves to be carried out any further or not, particularly viewed from the perspective that till 2003, his conduct at Kandla Port Trust has not fallen for any adverse action. Let the writ petitioner make his submissions in detail in writing and if he so desires supplement it orally as well within a period of fortnight from today. Basing upon the submissions of the writ petitioner, an appropriate decision including dropping of the charge sheet laid against the petitioner be taken within a further period of fifteen days. It is needless to observe that the case of the writ petitioner for further promotion to the next higher post would be appropriately dealt with by the Chairman. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Dt : 28.6.2010 knk Note: CC in (3) days (b/o) knk