Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Ek Mohammed Ubaidulla vs Ut Of Lakshadweep on 22 April, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 181/00581/2025
Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
E K Mohammed Ubaidulla, Son of Ali Akbar Khan,
Aged 30 years, Multi Skill Employee (Technical)
(under orders of dismissal), Port Unit,
Department of Port Shipping and Aviation,
Androth Island, Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682551,
Residing at Edayakkal House, Androth Island,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 551. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Rekha Vasudevan)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
represented by the Administrator,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 555.
2. The Secretary, Department of Port Shipping and Aviation,
Coral Bhavan, Kavaratti,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep 682 555.
3. The Director, Port Shipping and Aviation,
Department of Port Shipping and Aviation,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 555.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30'
2
4. The Assistant Engineer (Shipping),
Department of Port Shipping and Aviation,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 555
5. The Port Assistant (Shipping),
Office of the Port Assistant (Shipping),
Department of Port Shipping and Aviation,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 555
6. Sri Utkarsha, IPS,
The Inquiry Officer and the Superintendent of Police
(Law and Order), Kavaratti,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep-682 555. ..... Respondents
[By Advocate: Ms. Sreekala K.L., Sr. Panel Counsel (R1-5)]
This Original Application having been heard on 06.03.2026, the
Tribunal on 22.04.2026 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant who was a Tally Clerk under the respondents challenges the order of penalty by which he was terminated from service, the memo of charges issued initiating the disciplinary proceedings, and the entire proceedings leading to the penalty order.
2. The applicant joined the service of the 2nd respondent, Department of Port, Shipping and Aviation, Union Territory of Lakshadweep as an MTS on 13.11.2017. Since he was a technical person, he was posted to Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 3 discharge the duties of a Tally Clerk. The duty of the Tally Clerk was to check the baggages (not the contents inside the baggages) and alongside the voyage wise cargo statement for the vessel issued from the port office. Any excess cargo loaded in the vessel, was to be noted and the Tally Officer was required to realize the fine from the claimant at the recipient dock/port. In order to tally the cargo a copy of the cargo statement was issued by the port to the Tally Clerk and only on receipt of the same, the work could be carried out by the Tally Clerk.
3. On 10.7.2023 the applicant was assigned duty as a Tally Clerk on board vessel, M.V. Thinnakara. The vessel was scheduled to sail from Kavaratti Island to Amini Island at 5.30 PM on that day. The loading of the cargo commenced from the morning at 10 AM on 10.7.2023. However, according to the applicant, Annexure A1 cargo statement for the vessel was issued to the applicant only at 5 PM on 10.7.2023. The time of print of the cargo statement is recorded at the bottom of the 2nd page, which shows 17:01:41 hours. Immediately on receipt of the print out of Annexure A1, the vessel was signalled to be moved out of the dock to be anchored at the mooring buoy. While the vessel was docked, a surprise check was conducted by a team of comprising of the District Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 4 Collector and ADM, Director of Port and Aviation, Port Assistant with staff and the Station House Officer, Kavaratti on board of the vessel.
4. A closer check of the cargo revealed that several cargo booked as HSD Oil Barrel and hard board cases contained petrol which was never declared by the concerned consignees in the port while billing. The vessel was immediately ordered to be docked at the port and a detailed inspection was conducted. A fresh voyage wise cargo statement was printed on 11.7.2023 at 15:58:04 hours shown as Annexure A2. According to the applicant, a detailed inspection was in fact conducted only on 11.7.2023. However, the 5th respondent, the Port Assistant Shipping had given Annexure A3 report to the 4th respondent, the Assistant Engineer, Shipping, Department of Port and Shipping stating that the applicant was involved.
5. An FIR was registered on 11.7.2023 as Crime No. 16 of 2023 of Kavaratti Police Station, on the files of JFCM, Androth, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A4. According to the applicant, he was in no way involved in any malpractice, and verifying the contents with description of the goods in the bill and the cargo statement, does not fall Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 5 within his duty. Even before the applicant could verify the goods alongside the Annexure A1 cargo statement, the inspection team had taken over the vessel for further investigation.
6. As a sequel to the above incident, the applicant was placed under suspension by Annexure A5 order dated 12.7.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, his suspension was extended from time to time and ultimately, he was issued with Annexure A6 show cause notice dated 4.8.2023. He submitted Annexure A7 reply statement dated 14.8.2023 denying all the allegations. There was no further action for a long period. In the meanwhile, final report was filed in Crime No. 16 of 2023 with the applicant herein as the 1st accused for offences under Section 286 IPC, Sections 7(1)(a)(i), 3(2)(d) and 7(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 23(a) and 3 of Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 3(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 read with Section 7(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 of Kavaratti Police Station. Annexure A8 is the final report filed in that case.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 6
7. According to the applicant his suspension was being extended from time to time violating the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 291]. While so, Annexure A9 memo of charges dated 27.5.2024 was served on him on an allegation that the applicant had committed misconduct and unbecoming of a Government servant and in violation of Rules 3-1(i)(ii)(iii)(xviii) and (xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
8. The 6th respondent, the ASP of Kavaratti was appointed as the inquiry officer. In the preliminary inquiry, the applicant raised an objection regarding the appointment of a Police Officer as the inquiry officer on a premise that the criminal case against him was investigated and laid by the Police. Thus, the inquiry officer had access to the investigation file also. Accordingly, he submitted Annexure 12(b) representation raising the allegations, evidenced by Annexures A12 and A12(a). The daily proceeding sheets are produced as Annexures A12(c) to A12(f) indicating the proceedings during the above period. Without disposal of the above representation, inquiry was proceeded and posted to 20.11.2024. He submitted a request for additional documents and certified copies of documents. He had also pointed out the hasty manner Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 7 in which the inquiry was being conducted. The representation submitted by him was kept pending. He submitted Annexure A13 representation raising these objections.
9. While so, by Annexure A14 the suspension was revoked. The applicant approached the Magistrate Court seeking discharge, which was dismissed by Annexure A15 order. He challenged it in Crl. RP No. 664 of 2025.
10. In the meanwhile, criminal proceeding was also progressing parallelly with the departmental proceedings. After completion of recording of evidence of State witnesses, by Annexure A17 the applicant was required by the disciplinary authority to present his defence and to submit a copy of his statement of defence to the presenting officer. He was also required to provide a list of witnesses to be examined by him. Annexure A17 is the daily order sheet evidencing it. He submitted defence witnesses list as Annexure A18. The written statement of defence submitted by him is Annexure A18(a).
11. After conclusion of inquiry, the presenting officer submitted Annexure A19 written brief. The applicant submitted his Annexure A20 Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 8 statement of defence. In the meanwhile, the Crl. RP No. 664 of 2025 filed by him assailing Annexure A15 order of the Magistrate Court was partly allowed. Annexure A15 was set aside and the applicant was discharged of the offences under Section 3(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005, by Annexure A22 order. The applicant, in the meanwhile, had approached the Hon'ble High Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings against him which was dismissed by Annexure A25 order.
12. By Annexure A23, the applicant was served with a copy of the inquiry report. However, according to the applicant, the entire report was not given to him but only the conclusions and findings were forwarded for his comments. A strong objection was submitted by him as Annexure A24 evidencing that the entire inquiry report was not furnished to him. In spite of the specific objection that he was not served with the entire inquiry report, Annexure A26 order dated 4.12.2025 was issued imposing penalty of dismissal from service, which shall also be a disqualification for future employment under the Government.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 9
13. Contending that Annexure A26 and the entire proceedings leading to Annexure A26 are vitiated and hence, not sustainable, applicant has approached this Tribunal on various grounds. The essential reliefs sought by the applicant in the OA are as follows:
"a. To set aside the Annexure A26 order issued by the 2nd respondent, Annexure A23 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, Annexure A9 memo of charges issued by the 2nd respondent, Annexure A6 show cause notice and Annexure A5 order of suspension issued by the 3rd respondent.
b. Declare that the applicant is fully entitled to be exonerated of all the charges levelled against him and to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including the backwages and seniority.
c. Direct the respondents to issue orders exonerating the applicant of the charges levelled against him and to reinstate him service forthwith, with all consequential benefits including the backwages and the seniority, within a shortest time frame.
d. Declare that the applicant is entitled to get the period of suspension from 12.7.2023 to 29.12.2024 regularized as duty for all purposes.
e. Direct the respondents to issue orders regularising the period of suspension from 12.7.2023 to 29.12.2024 as duty for all purposes and to grant him the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay, within a shortest time frame."
14. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a detailed reply statement denying the various allegations. It was stated that to the memo of charges served on the applicant, he had filed Annexure R1(b) reply statement. He was served with the list of witnesses and the list of documents proposed to be Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 10 relied on by the respondents in the inquiry. He was given a fair opportunity to participate in the inquiry, to cross examine witnesses and to adduce his evidence. The allegations levelled against the applicant was very serious. The inquiry officer by Annexure R1(c) report found the applicant guilty of all the charges levelled against him. After consideration of the written submission made by the applicant and the material evidence on record, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and provided the inquiry report to the charged officer. To it, he submitted Annexure R1(d) reply. It was considered by the disciplinary authority along with the evidence and findings in the inquiry report. Ultimately, penalty was imposed on him finding the allegations against the applicant to be extremely serious. Annexure R1(e) is the order of the disciplinary authority. It was also stated that the allegation against the applicant was very serious. The contention of the applicant that the cargo statement was received at 5 PM and the sail was scheduled at 5.30 PM will not sustain or absolve the applicant since he was duty bound to verify the cargo. He could seek enough time to inform the concerned official responsible to defer the sailing until the crosschecking was done. He did not do so. It resulted in Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 11 the transportation of petrol worth Rs. 10.45 lakhs being loaded into the vessel in loosely packed plastic bottles and cans. That posed serious threat to the safety and security of the vessel and the crew as such highly inflammable cargo was packed in the most unscientific way and was being transported. It could have resulted in a major accident. It was further stated that the applicant has not approached the concerned authority by filing an appeal as provided under Rule 24(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Without following the said statutory remedy, the applicant has directly approached this Tribunal, which is premature and hence, is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
15. Heard both sides. Examined the records.
16. The sustainability of the Original Application was vehemently contested by the learned counsel for the respondents by contending that the applicant has not adopted the procedure contemplated under Rule 24(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which provides for an appeal against the order which is impugned in the present OA. It was specifically pleaded and vehemently contended by the learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweep administration that in so far as the applicant has not Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 12 exhausted the legal remedy available to him by preferring an appeal challenging the impugned order of imposition of penalty and termination, the Original Application was not sustainable.
17. This was answered by the learned counsel for the applicant by relying on the various aspects leading to the impugned order. It was contended by the learned counsel that after conducting an inquiry, the report was submitted by the inquiring authority to the disciplinary authority. By Annexure A23 only a truncated copy of the inquiry report was forwarded. Only the conclusion part of the inquiry report was forwarded to the applicant. This was fundamentally wrong and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as the law settled by the Supreme Court ultimately in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727]. A perusal of Annexure A23 clearly shows that only the conclusions and findings was forwarded to the applicant. In fact, it was the duty of the respondents to supply him the entire report. In Annexure A24 reply it was specifically pointed out that only the conclusions were given to him. The inquiry report as specified in Rule 14(23)(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, include the specific parts mentioned therein, such as the articles of charge, and the statement of Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 13 imputation of misconduct, the defence of Government servant, analysis of evidence and finding of the decision against each charge. Hence, inquiry report consists of all the above parts. Evidently, the last part of the report alone was forwarded by Annexure A23. This will not satisfy the statutory obligations. To that extent there is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
18. By Annexure A26, penalty was imposed on the applicant by the disciplinary authority. In paragraph 12 of said order it was specifically recorded by the disciplinary authority that after careful consideration of the entire records, the authority was of the opinion that the charges levelled against the charged officer were proved beyond doubt, that there was breach of safety and security as well and "there are good and sufficient reasons for imposing major penalty on the charged official".
19. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the above quoted sentence is the only sentence conveying the justification for imposing major penalty. Evidently, there is no discussion of materials on record, much less any reason for imposing the harsh penalty of dismissal from service which will be a disqualification for future employment. Such a Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 14 penalty under Rule 11(9) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 should have been preceded by due application of mind, it was contended. Evidently the discussion of evidence, elaborate analysis of the contentions and the detailed reasons leading to the conclusion are absent. To this extent there is definitely violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the applicant is correct in contending that in such cases no purpose will be served in filing a statutory appeal, which will only be a redundant exercise.
20. Regarding the legal proposition involved, the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588]. In that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in quasi- judicial proceedings, non-supply of adverse material to the affected person but supply thereof to the authority taking decision against him constitutes violation of Rules of natural justice. It was held therein that in the inquiry proceedings the aggrieved person was entitled to represent against the conclusions of the inquiry officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of charges. Supply of copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 15 inflicted would be within the Rules of natural justice and the delinquent would therefore be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. Non supply of the report would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, and make the final order liable to challenge.
21. Evidently, in the present case, full report was not furnished to the applicant. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice is only to be sustained.
22. The next limb of contention set up by the applicant was that he being a Tally Clerk had no duty to verify the contents of the consignments. It was contended that his duty was limited to the duties assigned to him by the various OMs which only imposed on him a duty to tally the cargo which were already loaded, with the cargo statement and to ensure that excess quantity was not loaded. It was contended that in the inquiry absolutely no legally admissible evidence was adduced to hold the applicant guilty of any misconduct.
23. The applicant was admittedly the Tally Clerk who was assigned the duty on board MV Kavaratti on 10.7.2023. Admittedly cargo was loaded Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 16 in the vessel from 10 AM onwards. The vessel was to leave the port by 5:30 PM to Amini Island. Annexure A1 is the cargo statement dated 4.7.2023. According to the applicant the said cargo statement was generated at 17:01:41 hours, evident from Annexure A1 itself and handed over to him thereafter. Clearly less than half an hour was left before the vessel was to leave. Annexure A2 is also another cargo statement given to him. Applicant has a definite case that he did not get sufficient time to tally the cargo with the statement. Three crucial questions arise herein in the above facts. One is whether the applicant had in fact checked the entire goods and found that there was excess quantity. Secondly whether the contraband concealed in cargo that had already been loaded after initial checking by the security officers, were the cargo which applicant was expected to tally. Thirdly, whether the applicant got time to tally the load and whether he had in fact tallied it.
24. It is an admitted fact that the vessel left the jetty at 5.30 PM and thereafter berthed at mooring buoy of NIOT at 7.30 PM awaiting further clearance. It was at that time the inspection team entered the vessel and conducted the inspection. By that time the vessel had also started moving, and hence it was directed to be docked in a yard. The team led by District Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 17 Collector along with police, recovered huge contraband of cargo boxes and cans containing petrol on board worth Rs. 10,45,000/-. Evidently, it is a huge consignment kept concealed in cans and boxes. As indicated above the crucial question that arise is whether the applicant had a duty to verify the contents of such consignment. Definitely, if excess had been loaded, definitely the applicant could have found it out, while tallying with cargo statement, if he had completed the inspection. It is not clear from the records whether the tally clerk was expected to complete the tallying before the vessel leaves the jetty or whether he can continue his job even on board. Applicant has a specific case, as revealed in Annexures A1 and A24 that he was not permitted to stay at the deck as per shipping Rules. On the other hand, the pleading in the reply that the applicant could have sought for deferring the sailing till the crosschecking was done clearly shows that he was bound to complete before the ship sails off. Further, he being a low-grade officer could not have demanded to delay the sailing of ship. Clearly, there was no sufficient time for effective cross tallying.
25. Annexures A1 and A2 voyage wise cargo statement respectively contains 45 and 44 items of cargo having a net value of Rs. 45,913/- and Rs. 45,433/- respectively. The nature of the cargo described in the Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 18 statement so loaded indicates that it includes HSD barrels and about 50 petrol barrels as item No. 21 and as item No. 22 several HSD barrels. Evidently, the loading of the articles had started at 10 AM. It is also to be noted that the entire area from where the items are loaded is completely cordoned off and is a security area under the control of police force. Nobody can enter without due verification. This is evident from various records relied on by the applicant. It is also on record that about 1074 barrels of diesel for electricity board were not included in the cargo list. It was from these consignments applicant had to tally the cargo with the list.
26. Applicant relied on Annexure A27 notification dated 20.11.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent specifying the Rules and responsibilities of each stake holder who was to load the articles. As per Annexure A27 notification, the master of cargo barges was to communicate the loading plan of the voyage. Port Assistants in the Islands were to prepare a loading/unloading schedule based on the cargo onboard to handle the cargo within the stipulated time frame of the schedule and coordinate with loading/unloading contractors and consumer departments. The Rules indicated specifically that the barge will not wait for arrival of cargo for loading and cargo loaded shall be kept ready at loading point in time. The Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 19 decision to allot and not to allot any private cargo shall rest with the Director of Port Shipping & Aviation and that the space for private parties will be provided after considering the requirement of Government departments.
27. The duties of Port Assistants and Tally Clerks on board cargo barges are specifically mentioned in Annexure A27. Regarding the duties of Tally Clerk on board of cargo barges it was stated as follows:
"a. On arrival at each Port, consult Port Assistant and preplan the unloading/loading operations to handle the cargo within the stipulated time and adhere to the fixed schedule.
b. Shall deliver the Invoice to representative of the concerned Govt Department directly or through Port Assistants."
A close perusal of Annexure A27 clearly indicates that specific duties are assigned to various officers regarding the items which are loaded and the cargo can be loaded only on the basis of the details furnished by them.
28. Annexures A28, A29 and A30 are the various office memorandums issued from time to time. Annexure A28 is a notice dated 2.12.2020 issued by the Deputy Director, Supply and Transport. It specifically provides that cargo tickets will be issued one day prior to the sailing day, all the private and Government cargo owners shall ensure that their cargo Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 20 tickets are obtained one day prior to sailing day and that the private and Government cargo owners shall inform their agents to transport their billed cargo to the scanning centre before 4 PM on the day of loading. It also specifically provides that the vehicles with cargo that arrive after 4 PM will not be permitted to unload their cargo either inside or in the premises of the cargo scanning centre. Specific procedures are provided for verifying the contents including the scanning. Whether it was in place and if so, whether done or not, is a different question. Annexure A30 is an office memorandum dated 24.1.2000 issued by the Port Department relating to the private cargo. It specifically provided that the charges shall be collected on the basis of the shipping bills and other records and loading freight shall be collected onshore before loading is permitted. It was stated that it shall be the responsibility of the Deputy Director, S&T at Kochi and Cargo Superintendent/Shipping Inspector/Tally Clerk onboard the ships to ensure that no private cargo is allowed onboard without collecting the freight in advance. In case of unauthorized cargo is found on board surcharge equal to three times of normal freight shall be levied. This clearly shows that the duty of the applicant, in this circumstance is very limited.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 21
29. Even if he had cross checked the load, the main question is whether he was legally bound to open the cans and the cargo boxes which has already been loaded. A close perusal of the records clearly indicates that absolutely no material has been placed before us to show that it is the responsibility of the Tally Clerk to verify the contents of the cargo and that if at all any contraband is found concealed inside the items covered by the voyage statement, it will be the responsibility of the Tally Clerk alone. None of the witnesses examined have also stated that tally clerk has such responsibility. It is also clear that it is after through checking that items are permitted to be loaded. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant is responsible for the contents kept inside the items which are loaded essentially on the basis of voyage statement. It is also pertinent to note that it is his specific case that even before he had started his job, the vessel had left the shore and thereafter the surprise inspection commenced, which is not denied.
30. Annexure A7 is the explanation submitted by the applicant in answer to the show cause notice dated 4.8.2023. In it, the applicant had specifically contended that he was given the cargo manifest by the authorities on 10.7.2023 at 5:01 PM and barge left the jetty on 10.7.2023 Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 22 around 5.30 PM itself. He had further stated that it had been the practice found recently that when barge berths on jetty, several cargo items are loaded into the barge without their notice and information/permission. The authorities of jetty security and port who manage and handle the cargo at shore may have not properly monitored and inspected the entry, it was alleged. Otherwise, these sorts of loading of petrol and other items hidden in packed hardboard boxes and mixing these unallowed cargos with other items cannot be camouflaged as bonafide cargo. He had also indicated that without the authority and information of the authorities at port who handles the cargo at shore and the security personnel who are supposed to watch out the unlawful acts at jetty, such a loading and unloading would not have occurred. He had also attributed that the delay in giving the cargo manifest have resulted in the inability to properly verify the cargo items within the time possible. In the above reply he had also stated that 1074 barrels of diesel of electricity department were also not even included in the initial manifest and it was included in the corrected manifest dated 11.7.2023. The same stand has been reiterated by him in Annexure A24 reply to the inquiry report and in Annexure A18(a) reply submitted by him before the inquiry authority in the form of Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 23 defence statement.
31. In the above replies, he had stated that the excess cargo which was said to be found were only petrol barrels which was having the shipping bills included in the manifest as HSD. 80% of the cases where petrol was seen were also having shipping bills. The general cargo was loaded by the port contractor and the society cargo was loaded by the society contractor. He has further stated that 1074 barrels of diesel for Electricity Department was not at all included in the manifest.
32. In this context the allegation of the respondents in the charge memo is worth noticing. In Annexure A26 charge memo, the specific allegation was that on preliminary inspection large number of unauthorized excess cargo boxes and cans containing petrol were found on board. In this context the final report laid by the investigating agency at Annexure A4 at page 14 is also relevant which discloses the crux of the allegation of the prosecution. It was stated therein, that on inspection on 11.7.2023 it was found that in addition to the cargo mentioned in the cargo manifest, petroleum was stored on the barge in various measurements inside cans and bottles concealed with deal wood/hard wood cases, thereby Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 24 misleading the Department and also that petroleum had been filled in barrels under the guise of HSD oil using shipping bills so as to mislead the Government. Thus, the version of the administration and the police are diametrically different. In the final report, the investigating authority has also stated that each hardboard box was opened one by one and thus the petrol filled in cans, bottles and other containers inside the boxes as well as the petrol cans found kept in sack bags not included in the cargo manifest and took the same in custody. Evidently, entire contraband, even according to the investigating agency was concealed in hardboard boxes. In the absence of any material or record to show that the applicant in his capacity as the Tally Clerk was either authorized to open the boxes or had the authority to open the boxes and verify the contents, no liability can be fixed on him much less any misconduct in this regard.
33. The next question that arises in this regard is whether applicant could have found the excess quantity. Definitely, if specific numbers of items were loaded in the cargo area, excess cargo could have been easily detected by tallying with the cargo manifest, if the concerned tally clerks get sufficient time to check. However, actual scenario shows a different picture. Again, in Annexure A4, at page 15, it is stated that on examining Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 25 the barrels containing petroleum stored in the forward part of the barge, (apparently, not the cargo area) it was understood from the cargo manifest that only 50 barrels of petrol mentioned therein had valid shipping bills and that in the remaining barrels, petroleum had been filled by taking shipping bills in the name of HSD oil in order to smuggle the same. In those barrels not covered by the manifest, 34 barrels containing petroleum were found. These barrels were seized as per procedure and the total quantity of petroleum stood confiscated was 6,350 liters. Annexure A4 is the FIR and Annexure A8 is the final report. In the FIR, it was suspected that the activity was done in collusion with certain Government officials, barge staff, IOC employees and contract workers. However, after investigation, only two persons stood arrayed as accused namely the applicant and the Chief Officer. It shows that despite the availability of the address of the consignor in whose name cargo items have been listed and consignee who was to take delivery, no action was taken against such persons nor were they arrayed as accused. The consignor and the consignee are not arrayed as accused. The entire facts disclose that without the tacit or active support of several other persons including the security personnel and the officers of the port who were stationed while Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 26 loading and obliged to prevent unnecessary entries of unauthorized articles, such a huge activity could not have been done. No doubt, carrying such huge quantity of unauthorized consignment on board, without any security check, posed great security threat, no serious action was taken. There are reasons to believe that now the applicant alone has been made a scapegoat. Whether he has knowingly or unknowingly been a party to such conspiracy is also not discernable from the materials on record. It has also come on record that about 1,000 liters of petroleum/diesel of IOC were kept in barrels and not included in the manifest. Essentially, the records are so clumsy and confusing that it is difficult to fix any liability on the basis of these materials. As indicated above it is surprising as to how such huge quantity of petrol entered the port without the knowledge of the port authorities/administration authorities. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution under Section 3(vi) of the High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005 was quashed by the Honourable High Court and the applicant stood discharged by Annexure A22 order from that charge, though on technical grounds.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 27
34. Applicant has produced Annexure A16 series of statements of two witnesses examined before the inquiry officer on the side of the administration. The first one was a Port Assistant, who in his statement stated that his duty as a Port Assistant was supervising the movement of ships, cargo barges and HSCs as well handling shipping bills for cargo movement, allotting berths for cargo barges, assigning supervisory staff for cargo operations. The above witness as well as the other witness have in their statements affirmed that the entire port area was a high security zone manned by police personnel. They have also stated that whenever an item is brought to the area, necessarily, the authorities will verify the items with the shipping bills.
35. The said witness in his statement though affirmed that he was a party to the team which inspected the barge on the relevant day and recovered the items, could not state the details of the items so recovered. He also could not say whether all the items so recovered were included in the cargo manifest. He also stated that regarding the procedure of loading cargoes in barges there was an MMD procedure with onboard Chief Officer of the ship. He was not aware whether any SOP was in place for the Lakshadweep Administration. To a specific question as to how many Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 28 wood cases or hardboard cases were verified by the team on 10.7.2023, the witness could not affirm any details. He also could not affirm regarding the number of cargo packets having valid shipping bills, having petrol bottles/cans found inside the hardboard cases/bundles. He also admitted that IOCL cargo items were not listed in the cargo manifest. He further affirmed that except IOC barrels all the barrels had shipping bills.
36. The second witness in his statement produced as Annexure A16(a) was an MSE(T). He was also present at the time of seizure of petroleum items. He was specifically asked about the details of the quantity of petrol items seized and the details of it, to which he also feigned ignorance. To a specific question as to how many cartoons, which were not included in the shipping bills were seized, he answered that he was not aware of it. He also affirmed that the whole of Kavaratti jetty was a high security area and was under the 24 hours security of police or CRPF. He also affirmed that at the time of loading, duty officer will verify the shipping bills regarding the consignments. A recapitulation of the entire facts discussed above, clearly shows that none of the witness has given evidence to establish the misconduct as against the applicant.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 29
37. Further, a perusal of the statements given by both the witnesses clearly show that they could not in any manner establish the complicity of the applicant or the misconduct alleged against him. Both of them had no idea regarding the quantity of contrabands/petroleum items which were recovered and whether they were found in excess and also whether they were supported by shipping bills. In the above circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer and affirmed by the disciplinary authority regarding the misconduct attributed to the applicant is a clear case of conclusion arrived at, without support of any material evidence.
38. The impugned orders and the proceedings resulting in the inquiry report were assailed by the learned counsel for the applicant on various other legal grounds. It was specifically contended that the inquiry authority was a police officer and the presenting officer was also a police officer. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that investigation was conducted by the police and the charge sheet was laid by the police against the applicant and another person. In the above circumstances, the inquiring authority being a superior officer who was in complete charge of the police in Lakshadweep and had access to even confidential Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 30 information relating to the investigation was likely to be biased towards the prosecution, which he was heading. In these special circumstances, the police officer could not have been the inquiry authority, inquiring into the same set of facts, under investigation of police, it was contended. It is seen that such an objection was raised and recorded in Annexure A12 proceedings dated 7.10.2024. Annexure A12(b) written objection was submitted by the applicant contending that the police officer should not be the inquiring officer. The receipt of such a representation is recorded in the proceeding dated 6.11.2024 produced as Annexure A12(c). Inspite of that, the inquiry proceeded and no order was passed on the bias petition. Hence, another representation produced as Annexure A13 dated 18.11.2024 was submitted by the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that any order was passed on the bias petition. Without passing any orders on it, inquiry was completed and inquiry report was submitted. Evidently, the inquiry authority ought not have inquired into the same matter which was the subject matter of investigation by police under him.
39. Assailing the procedure, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to Annexure A11 office memorandum issued by the DoP&T dated 9.11.1972. The office memorandum specifically stated that Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 31 whenever an application is moved by a Government servant against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, against the inquiry officer on grounds of bias, the proceedings should be stayed and the application referred, along with the relevant material, to the appropriate reviewing authority for considering the application and passing appropriate orders thereon. This was not complied with. To that extent, the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is improper, illegal and inquiry to that extent is vitiated.
40. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that after completion of inquiry by Annexure A23 dated 24.6.2025 the report purportedly submitted by the inquiry authority to the disciplinary authority was forwarded under Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 calling upon the applicant to give his comments. The specific contention of the applicant is that only the part of the inquiry report relating to the conclusion and finding alone was forwarded to the applicant. As mentioned earlier, applicant was not supplied with the full report and to that extent it was not in accordance with Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Definitely the applicant, to give an effective representation should be able to evaluate the entire evidence, statements given by the witnesses Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 32 and only then it can be stated that an effective opportunity was given to the applicant to raise his contentions regarding the conclusions arrived at by the authority. In the absence of such report, the entire procedure is vitiated, it was contended. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) and B. Karunakar's case (supra) reiterating the necessity of supplying the inquiry report and calling for the comments from the delinquent employee regarding the conclusions arrived at. The Supreme Court had referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai [(1969) 2 SCC 128] wherein the Court had affirmed that the requirement of a reasonable opportunity would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the inquiry officer including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent employee. It was held by the Supreme Court that even after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, the position remains the same. It was held that even in a quasi-judicial proceeding, if the delinquent is deprived of the knowledge of the material against him, though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching its conclusion, the proceeding is vitiated.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 33
41. Evidently, in the instant case, the entire inquiry report was not supplied to the applicant which disabled him from effectively answering it. To that extent, the proceedings thereafter is vitiated.
42. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that after Annexure A23, on the basis of the comments made by the applicant the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass Annexure A26 order of penalty and the maximum penalty of dismissal from service was imposed with a rider that it will act as a disqualification from any other future employment. It was contended that when such a harsh punishment was imposed on the applicant, he should have been given an opportunity to reply to the punishment that was proposed to be imposed on him. The learned counsel for the applicant in this regard invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Karunakar's case (supra).
43. Evidently, the Supreme Court in B. Karunakar's case (supra) had affirmed that the applicant is entitled for the second opportunity regarding the punishment proposed to be imposed on him. To supplement this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on a catena of decisions ending with Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand & Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 34 Anr. [(2010) 11 SCC 278]. However, Indu Bhushan Dwivedi's case stand on a different footing. In that, the employer/State relied on uncommunicated service records of the employee to hold that the petitioner therein had a previous history of misconduct and imposed penalty. In the instant case the applicant was not given an opportunity to give his representation against the proposed penalty. He was not also heard on the penalty that was proposed to be imposed.
44. Regarding this there is yet another aspect to be taken note of. In Annexure A26 order, while concurring with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiring authority, the disciplinary authority has not given any specific reasons to impose the penalty, except a vague observation in paragraph 12 of Annexure A26 that "there are good and sufficient reasons for imposing a major penalty on the charged official". What are the reason which persuaded the disciplinary authority to arrive at such a conclusion is not discernable from the records.
45. A consideration of the entire facts leads to a definite conclusion that this was a specific case wherein the applicant was imposed with maximum penalty without any material on record. It is a case of no Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 35 evidence as against the applicant. Further, the inquiry proceedings were vitiated for the specific reasons mentioned therein. Thus, the penalty order is not sustainable both on facts and law. Several procedural irregularities are patent on record. Hence, we do not propose to consider the further contention of applicant that the penalty was disproportionate to the guilt. Had it been the case of mere violation of not supplying the entire records relating to the inquiry and the conclusions and not giving an opportunity of being heard regarding the quantum of punishment, we would have been justified in remanding the matter and directing the respondents to proceed from the stage of supplying full set of inquiry report. However, we find that on merits also the case set up by the respondents is not sustainable. The illegality goes to the root of the case as such. Hence, we feel that there is no scope for even a remand. The only conclusion that is possible is in favour of the applicant.
46. In the result, the Original Application is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside and the applicant is directed to be taken back in service with entire service benefits as if he was continuing in service. Appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The entire benefits due to the applicant shall also be Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 36 paid within the above period, failing which it will carry 8% interest till disbursement. No costs.
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30'
37
Original Application No. 181/00581/2025
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of the voyage wise cargo statement for
Thinnkara on 4.7.2023.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the voyage wise cargo statement for
Thinnakara on 5.7.2023.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the letter dated nil addressed by the 4th
respondent to the 3rd respondent along with the report F. No. 1/14/2020PA(KVT) dated 10.7.2023 addressed by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the FIR No. 0016 of 2023 registered by the Kavaratti Police Station as filed on the files of the Honourable JFMC Androth on 11.7.2023 along with the translation.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the order F. No. 01/04/2023-DPSA/912 dated 12.7.2023 issued by t he 3rd respondent.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the show cause notice F. No. 01/04/2023- DPSA/1071 dated 4.8.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the explanation dated 14.8.2023 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the final report dated 2.2.2024 in Crime No. 16 of 2023 of Kavaratti Police Station along with the translation.
Annexure A9 - True copy of the memo F. No. 1/4/2023-DPSA/2672 dated 27.5.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 38 Annexure A10 - True copy of the reply dated 26.6.2024 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A11 - True copy of the OM No. 39/40/70-Estt(1) dated 9.11.1972 issued by the Department of Personnel.
Annexure A12 - True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 7.10.2024.
Annexure A12(a)-True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 10.10.2024.
Annexure A12(b)-True copy of the representation dated 28.10.2024 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A12(c)-True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 6.11.2024.
Annexure A12(d)-True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 7.11.2024.
Annexure A12(e)-True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 21.11.2024.
Annexure A12(f)-True copy of the Daily order sheet in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 4.12.2024.
Annexure A13 - True copy of the representation dated 18.11.2024 submitted by the applicant to the 6th respondent.
Annexure A14 - True copy of the order F. No. 01/04/2023-DPSA/3965 dated 30.12.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A15 - True copy of order dated 3.2.2025 in CMP No. 101 in CC No. 19/2024 (Kavaratti Police Station (of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Androth.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 39 Annexure A16 - True copy of deposition of the State witness (SW3) in F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 27.1.2024.
Annexure A16(a)-True copy of the cross examination of the Jetty Shank. Annexure A17 - True copy of the daily order sheet F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 9.4.2025.
Annexure A18 - True copy of the list of defence witnesses dated nil submitted by the applicant to the 6th respondent.
Annexure A18(a)-True copy of the written statement of defence dated nil submitted by the applicant to the 6th respondent. Annexure A19 - True copy of written brief dated 5.6.2025 submitted by the presenting officer.
Annexure A20 - True copy of the written statement of defence dated 18.6.2025 submitted by the Defence Assistant of the applicant to the 6th respondent.
Annexure A21 - True copy of the daily order sheet XXII F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 24.6.2025.
Annexure A22 - True copy of the order dated 8.7.2025 of the Honourable High Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 664 of 2025.
Annexure A23 - True copy of the notice F. No. LD-01/04/2023- DPSA/465 dated 15.7.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent along with the conclusion and findings of the inquiry report.
Annexure A24 - True copy of the representation dated 30.7.2025 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A25 - True copy of the order dated 6.11.2025 in Crl. M.C. No. 9090 of 2025 of the Honourable High Court.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30' 40 Annexure A26 - True copy of the order F. No. 01/04/2023-DPSA/1175 dated 4.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A27 - True copy of the notification F. No. 9/2/2002- Port(OPB)/1697 dated 20.11.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A28 - True copy of the notice No. 1/1/2019-DRC/773 dated 2.12.2020 issued by the Deputy Director (Supply & Transport) along with its retyped copy.
Annexure A29 - True copy of the OM F. No. 9/10/96-PORT(OPB) Vol.II dated 24.1.2000 issued by the Port Officer.
Annexure A30 - True copy of the OM F. No. 9/10/96-PORT (OPB) Vol.
II dated 24.1.2000 issued by the Port Officer along with the retyped copy.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the memorandum F. No. 1/4/2023- DPSA/2672 dated 27.5.2024.
Annexure R1(b)- True copy of the reply statement filed by the applicant dated 26.6.2024.
Annexure R1(c)- True copy of the charges framed against the applicant MSE(T), Port Unit Androth, F. No. 3/2/2024/ASP/DE dated 24.6.2025.
Annexure R1(d)- True copy of the representation dated 30.7.2025. Annexure R1(e)- True copy of the order F. No. 01/04/2023-DPSA/1175 dated 4.12.2025.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:50:38+05'30'