Madras High Court
P.Jaikumar vs The Chairman on 26 September, 2025
W.P.No.4060 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.4060 of 2019
P.Jaikumar .. petitioner
vs
1. The Chairman
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 1.
2.The Deputy Chairman
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 1.
3. The Chief Engineer
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 1. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
pass the order dated 03.05.2017 in proceedings No.AE14/001027/16/E on
the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
W.P.No.4060 of 2019
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sivaranjani
for Mr.G.Justin
For Respondents : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has called in question the proceeding bearing Proc. No.AE14/001027/16/E dated 05.05.2017 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.
3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Mazdoor with the respondents on 08.08.1995; that he had put in about 25 years of service without any remark; that he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 18.04.2011 issued under the signature of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the petitioner had abstained himself from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 without prior permission; that he also unauthorisedly abstained from 16.09.2010 to till the date of order of 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 removal from service is issued (i.e.,) on 18.04.2011 as per Regulations 8(b)(viii) under Part V – Penalties & Disciplinary Authorities of MPT Employees CCA Regulations 1988 [herein after referred to as 'Regulations'].
4. The petitioner contended that though the impugned order makes a reference to the petitioner's unauthorised absence from 16.09.2010 till the date of passing of the order i.e., dt 18.04.2011, no notice has been issued to him in this regard; and that the order dated 18.04.2011 by which he was dismissed form service w.e.f.16.09.2010 is retrospective in nature, and as such, the order is vitiated and liable to be quashed.
5. It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under the regulations, for imposing major punishment of removal from service; that though the respondents claim of having issued notice regarding his absence for the period from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 and appointing an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the aforesaid charge; and that the enquiry officer having submitted a report dated 05.12.2011, the copy of the said enquiry report has not been furnished to him nor was he given an opportunity to submit his explanation before the disciplinary authority before visiting him with the decision to impose major 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 punishment of removal from service; and thus, the entire action of the respondents is in violation of Regulations 13 of the Regulations.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that by order dated 18.04.2011, the respondents sought to put an end to the relationship of employer and the employee, he had filed an appeal in terms of Regulations 22 of the Regulations and on the aforesaid appeal being refused to be entertained, he had availed further remedy of revision there against as provided under the Regulations 28; and that the respondents without considering the said revision in proper perspective, had summarily rejected the same stating that the same is not on merits and cannot be considered. It is also contended that the aforesaid action is highly illegal, arbitrary and is not in accordance with the regulations.
7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.
8. The respondents by the counter affidavit while denying the writ averments contended that the petitioner's unauthorised absence is not only limited to the period mentioned in the order dated 18.04.2011, but is spread over a period of 2855 days, where the petitioner had abstained himself 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 without availing any sanction and was punished 30 times during his tenure of service with the respondents, which only goes to show his conduct.
9. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that on the petitioner abstaining himself from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, the respondents have initiated disciplinary action by issuing memo dated 19.03.2010, directing the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days and the said memo was followed by a reminder memo dated 20.04.2010, directing the petitioner to join duty; that the petitioner despite acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid memo did not join the duty and instead submitted his explanation on 15.06.2010, after lapse of three months.
10. It is contended by the respondents that though, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the petitioner was permitted to join the duty subject to the respondent taking appropriate disciplinary action, as per the rules and regulations, upon which the petitioner had joined duty w.e.f. 16.06.2010.
5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
11. By the counter affidavit, it is also contended that since, the petitioner by the belated explanation submitted to the memo dated 19.03.2010, had claimed of he having taken treatment in private hospital for piles problem and from 09.05.2010 to 14.06.2010, he being under treatment at Port Trust Hospital, and that the said fact has been informed to the respondents and also having obtained approval for his absence in time, the respondents taking note of the previous conduct of the petitioner of having been punished for 30 times, decided to conduct a enquiry and accordingly, issued show cause notice dated 19.07.2010, enclosing there with articles of charge and directed the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence for his unauthorised absence from duty from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, as the said absence would amount to willful subordination / disobedience to the orders of the superiors.
12. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the petitioner on receiving the aforesaid notice along with articles of charge had submitted his explanation vide letter dated 06.08.2010, upon which an enquiry was ordered against him vide memo dated 11.08.2010, by appointing an enquiry officer as well as Presenting officer. 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
13. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that despite enquiry officer fixing the date of hearing of enquiry on 15.09.2010, 22.10.2010, 29.11.2010 and again on 17.12.2010, the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry. Thus, the enquiry officer thus proceeded with the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner by setting him exparte on 17.12.2010 and thereafter submitted his report on 05.02.2011; that a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the residence of the petitioner vide memo dated 17.02.2011 under registered post with an intimation to submit final written explanation within 15 days; and that the registered envelope was returned unserved with postal endorsement “not claimed”.
14. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner initially on being issued with show cause notice along with articles of charge in relation to unauthorised absence from duty from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, after having submitted his explanation on 06.08.2010, once again abstained himself from the duties w.e.f. 16.09.2010 without prior permission or making any leave application, for which the respondents had called for an explanation, vide memo dated 14.10.2010. The said memo issued to the petitioner though was received by him, no explanation was submitted nor the petitioner joined duties, due to which the respondent issued further 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 reminder memo dated 24.11.2010, which was duly acknowledged by him, but failed to respond to the same. As the petitioner continued his unauthorised absence, once again from 16.09.2010, the respondents have issued show cause memo and sent the same to the petitioner's residence vide letter dated 11.01.2011 intimating the articles of charge. However, the said show cause memo sent to the petitioner's house by registered post was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with endorsement “not claimed” and that the petitioner purposefully and with evil and malice intention avoided to receive the communications/notices addressed by the respondents.
15. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that despite enquiry officer report dated 05.02.2011 was sent to the petitioner's residence by post on 17.02.2011 calling upon him to submit final written explanation within 15 days and also with regard to his further unauthorised absence w.e.f. 16.09.2010, a further memo dated 15.03.2011 was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing. Even the said memo sent through registered post has been returned with postal endorsement “not claimed”.
8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
16. It is also contended that before deciding to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was served with memo dated 19.03.2010 and 20.04.2010 to submit explanation with documentary evidence for his unauthorised absence and that the petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor reported to duty within the stipulated period nor did give any explanation for not attending the enquiry.
17. By the counter affidavit it is contended that no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner with regard to his further unauthorised absence from 16.09.2010 despite being issued with Memo and reminder Memo, the petitioner by claiming that no show cause notice was issued in respect of the said unauthorised absence, had suppressed the fact that a show cause memo dated 11.01.2011 was infact issued to him in relation to the said unauthorised absence by sending the same by registered post and the same has been returned undelivered by the postal authorities with an endorsement “not claimed”.
18. By the counter affidavit, the respondents contended that the disciplinary authority has given maximum opportunities to the petitioner as 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 per the domestic enquiry procedures and that the petitioner did not respond to any of the memos. It is further contended that the disciplinary authority by considering the previous conduct of the petitioner of having been imposed punishment for 30 times for similar offence (i.e.,) for long unauthorised absence without prior permission and based on enquiry officer report dated 05.02.2011, in relation to unauthorised absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 had ordered for removal of the petitioner from the respondent Trust service vide proceedings dated 18.04.2011 from the date of his unauthorised absence i.e., 16.09.2010.
19. The respondent by the counter affidavit contended that though the petitioner claims of no notice being issued in relation to unauthorised absence from 16.09.2010 to 18.04.2011 (i.e,) 7 months, however, does not disputed the fact of he being absent from the duties.
20. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the order of removal of the petitioner from service is an appealable order which is to be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the order; and that the petitioner did not choose to avail the said opportunity by filing 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 an appeal in time. Accordingly, the order dated 18.04.2011 had attained finality.
21. The respondents further submit that the petitioner, however submitted a belated appeal on 26.09.2012, after a lapse of 17 months and thus, the said appeal was rejected for having been preferred beyond the time prescribed under the regulations; and that the petitioner did not seek revision of the said order, as provided under the regulations.
22. By the counter affidavit, the respondents further contended that the petitioner after a period of four years had approached the respondent authorities and submitted a representation dated 18.04.2016, requesting for payment of compassionate allowance on sympathetic grounds; and that the respondents by considering the request of the petitioner sympathetically sanctioned the gratuity amount as per the eligibility norms and in so far as the request for compassionate allowance is concerned, the same was not considered and the petitioner was informed of the same vide letter dated 27.06.2016.
11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
23. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that on they considering the request for compassionate allowance on sympathetic ground partly by paying the gratuity amount and rejecting the request for compassionate allowance, the petitioner once again by a letter dated 25.07.2016, requested for reinstatement; and that the said request was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 01.09.2016.
24. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that on the respondents rejecting the request for reinstatement vide letter dated 01.09.2016, the petitioner submitted his revision petition under Regulation No.28 of the Regulations on 24.02.2017 against the order dated 18.04.2011 to the disciplinary authority instead of the competent authority as prescribed under the regulations.
25. The respondents by the counter affidavit also contended that as the revision petition submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the regulations and also was not made to the competent authority, the same was not considered and the result was communicated to the petitioner on 03.05.2017, and it is the said proceeding which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
26. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that the respondents have followed all the procedures laid down before issuing the order of removal from service, including taking note of the fact of the habitual unauthorised absence of the petitioner for about 2855 days during his service, and also 30 times punishment imposed and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner of remaining absent w.e.f. 16.09.2010 onwards till passing of the order dated 18.04.2011, of removing him from the service of the respondents for his unauthorised absence during the period from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010.
27. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the petitioner having received the initial notice sent to him by registered post, thereafter ensured that the subsequent notices are returned with an endorsement 'not claimed' and thus, cannot claim of the entire action having been taken without issuing notice to him, inasmuch as the notices have been taken out to his last known address by registered post and the petitioner having 'not claimed' the said notices from the postal authorities, the same have to be treated as deemed service in terms of Section 27 of the General clauses Act.
13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
28. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
29. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions of the petitioner, facts which are borne out from the record are necessary to be detailed. The petitioner having remained absent from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, was initially issued with notice dated 19.03.2010 (i.e.,) immediately within two weeks from the date of his absence to duty, directing to submit his explanation within 7 days. Though, the petitioner received the aforesaid notice, did not submit any explanation. This resulted in the respondent issuing a reminder memo dated 20.04.2010, directing him to join duty. The said reminder memo also fell on the deaf ears of the petitioner, as the petitioner did not join duty, though received both the memos. The petitioner thereafter chose to submit his explanation on 15.06.2010 claiming he having required to undergo medical treatment as being the cause for his unauthorised absence. The said explanation however, was found by the respondents to be not satisfactory, permitted the petitioner to join duties w.e.f. 16.06.2010 while deciding to initiate disciplinary action as per the rules and regulations.
14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
30. On the respondents deciding to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, a show cause notice enclosing articles of charge was issued on 19.07.2010 directing him to submit written statement of defence against the articles of charge, to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation vide letter dated 06.08.2010, upon which an enquiry was ordered vide memo dated 11.08.2010.
31. It is upon the respondents ordering enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner chose not to receive any notices sent in relation to the aforesaid enquiry, nor appear before the enquiry officer appointed by the respondents to conduct enquiry into his unauthorized absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010. It is on account of the petitioner's non appearance, the enquiry officer had proceed with the enquiry exparte on 07.12.2010 and submitted his report on 05.02.2011. Even, the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner's residence by registered post, whereby the disciplinary authority had called upon the petitioner to submit his final written explanation within 15 days to the articles of charges for the authority to take further action. The petitioner did not chose to receive the notice nor submit his explanation. As a result of petitioner not receiving 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 the registered post, the said notice sent on 17.02.2011 was returned with postal endorsement “not claimed”.
32. In this regard, it is to be noted that regulations 29 of the regulations, deals with service of orders and notices and reads as under:-
“every order, notice and other process made or issued under these regulations shall be served in person on the employee concerned or communicated to him by registered post.”
33. Since, the notice of enquiry, and also enquiry report under cover of memo dated 17.02.2011 having been sent to the petitioner by registered post at his last known address available in the records of the respondents, the same would have to be considered as being in compliance of the Regulations 29 and the fact of the petitioner not receiving the same and the said registered post having been returned with postal endorsement, 'not claimed' would amount to be deemed service in terms of Clause 27 of the Act.
16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
34. Since, the registered post sent to petitioner is not returned with postal endorsement either as 'addressee left', no such person etc., and on the other hand, the postal endorsement indicating 'not claimed' only goes to show, that the petitioner despite residing at the address to which notices are sent did not receive the same or submit his explanations thereto.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555, while dealing with the registered envelope returned with endorsement 'not claimed' held as under :-
“14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu [(2004) 8 SCC 774 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 393] .) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.”
36. Thus, claim of the petitioner that he not been served with any notice of enquiry by the respondent before passing the order dated 18.04.2011 removing the petitioner from service without conducting enquiry and thus the same not being in accordance with the regulations, cannot be accepted as valid claim.
18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
37. Insofar as the further claim of the petitioner that in terms of Regulations 28, the petitioner is entitled to seek revision of the order dated 18.04.2011, it is to be noted that revisional powers are conferred under Regulations 28 only on Central Government or Chairman and Appellate Authority.
38. Insofar as the revisional power of Appellate authority are concerned, the regulations prescribe time limit of six months from the date of the order proposed to be reviewed. Insofar as the power of revisions to be exercised by the Chairman is concerned, proviso to Regulations 28 states that the Chairman shall not exercise power of revision, unless the authority which made the order in appeal or authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is himself or is subordinate to him. Sub Clause (2) of Regulations 28 further provides that the revision shall not be commenced until after the expiry of the period of limitation for any appeal or the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred.
39. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner on being served with order dated 18.04.2011 having initially filed an appeal on 26.09.2012 and on the said appeal being rejected on 25.10.2012, on the ground that the 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 same having been preferred beyond the period of two months as provided under Regulations 24 of the Regulations, the petitioner ought to have filed the revision. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioner did not chose to do so, and thus the order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal from service on 18.04.2011 had attained finality.
40. Further, the petitioner on his appeal being returned / rejected on the ground of barred by limitation kept quite and infact approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation dated 18.04.2016, requesting for grant of compassionate allowances which was rejected by the respondents vide communication letter dated 27.06.2016. After passing of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner sought to present the appeal for second time against the order dated 18.04.2011. The petitioner thus once again presented the appeal for the second time on 25.07.2016. Since, the regulations do not provide for second time appeal against the same proceedings, the respondents by order dated 01.09.2016, informed the petitioner that the said appeal cannot be considered, since, appeal was already rejected earlier. It is against this order, whereby the petitioner was 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 informed of second time appeal would not lie, chose to invoke the jurisdiction of revision under Regulation 28 of the Regulations.
41. In the interregnum, not only six years from the date of passing of the impugned order has passed by, even from the date of the intimation given to the petitioner of his second time appeal not being entertainable, six moths time had lapsed.
42. It is only in revision that is filed after a lapse of six years, the petitioner sought to raise the plea relating to the order dated 18.04.2011 being given retrospective effect; that no notice in relation to subsequent absence from 16.09.2010 till 18.04.2011 is issued; and that no enquiry being held in relation to the subsequent absence as per regulations.
43. Though, on behalf of the petitioner, it was sought to be contend that earlier counsel who conducted the proceedings did not conduct the same diligently, it is to be noted that the practice of blaming a counsel in his absence need to be deprecated. It is to be noted that in the affidavit filed no details have been mentioned as to who the counsel who was pursuing the matter, who according to petitioner did not pursue the matter properly. 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 Thus, the contention now urged before this Court of earlier counsel not pursuing the matter diligently is only made to gain sympathies from this Court and does not merit consideration.
44. It is to be noted that the petitioner having filed an appeal initially on 26.09.2012 cannot claim that notwithstanding the rejection of the appeal, he would be entitled to maintain the revision after lapse of five years from rejection of the appeal, without even seeking for condoning the delay in preferring such revision, by showing good and sufficient cause as provided under regulations 30 of the regulations.
45. Though, by placing reliance on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Bahadur Singh vs. P.R.T.C. and others reported in 2024: PHHC: 095493 it is contended that the order dated 18.04.2011 is palpably illegal since, the said order is given retrospective effect and as such the petitioner is entitled to seek revision of the same; it is to be noted that the impugned order dated 18.04.2011 under which the petitioner was removed from service refers to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for his unauthorised absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 and makes a reference to the subsequent conduct of the 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 petitioner of remaining absent from 16.09.2010 till the date of passing of the order i.e., on 18.04.2011. Further, the petitioner being issued with notice dated 14.10.2010 and 24.11.2010 and further show cause memo dated 11.01.2011, it cannot be said that taking note of the subsequent conduct of the petitioner while passing the impugned order removing the petitioner from service from the date of his unauthorised absence would amount to the order of removal as having retrospective effect.
46. Further, the respondent having initiated disciplinary action for unauthorised absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010, if had passed the order of removing from service from the date of passing of order, the same would result in respondents regularising the subsequent unauthorised absence of the petitioner from 16.09.2010 till the date of passing of the impugned order, which is not the purport of law. Thus, the reliance placed on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is out of context and would not advance the case of the petitioner. Thus, any action taken would have to take effect from the date of wilful disobedience and misconduct and cannot be a subsequent date resulting in respondents regularising such unauthorised absence.
23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
47. The fact of the petitioner having abstained for a long period of 2855 days during his service with the respondents and unauthorised absence from 02.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 for which enquiry has been initiated and remaining absent once again from 16.09.2010 till passing of the order dated 18.04.2011, only to demonstrate the pattern of behaviour and the misconduct of the petitioner and the aggravating factors compelling the respondents to take action of removing from service, which in the considered view of this Court cannot be either said as being excessive punishment or the action being vitiated.
48. Further the fact of the petitioner approaching this court assailing the proceedings dated 18.04.2011 by the present writ petition presented on 26.07.2017 would also attract the principles of delay and latches. In absence of any explanation from the petitioner as to the reasons preventing him from approaching this Court at an earlier point of time, and also taking note of the fact that the various remedies availed, including the request for compassionate allowances, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition as filed is only an after thought, apart from being abuse of process of law.
24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019
49. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26.09.2025 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh To
1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai Chennai – 1.
2.The Deputy Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1.
3. The Chief Engineer Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 1.
25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm ) W.P.No.4060 of 2019 T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
tsh Order in W.P.No.4060 of 2019 26.09.2025 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )