JV John, second engineer of the vessel, was held responsible for the mishap. Following a three-member enquiry committee finding him guilty, John was sacked on January 31, 1996. He, however, challenged the action before the appellate authority, which refused his application saying he was liable for punishment. He then moved the AP high court, which observed that there were three enquiries conducted on the incident and one of the reports suggested that the accident could have been due to systems failure. In his enquiry report, S Paramanandan, observer of the ministry of surface transport, pointed out that a physical check-up can be done after salvaging the vessel to find whether there was any systems failure. The corporation, however, failed to examine the vessel after it was salvaged owing to marine growth.
While setting aside his removal from service, the HC on December 14, 1999 directed the appellate authority to consider his case afresh by taking into account the findings of the committees with reference to the possibility of systems failure. The appellate authority confirmed his removal on April 24, 2000. The engineer then moved the HC again. While the litigation was pending, he retired from service in November, 2002.
Justice KG Shankar, allowed the plea of the sacked engineer. From the date of dismissal, the engineer was jobless and hence the question of ordering his reinstatement 11 years after his retirement does not arise, the judge said. However, since the guilt of the petitioner was not proved, it would be appropriate to treat that he retired from service on attaining superannuation with continuity of service, attendant benefits and retirement benefits, the judge said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment