ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the charge memo dated 20.11.2000 issued by the respondent, to quash the same and to forbear the respondent from proceeding further pursuant to the said charge memo.
2. Under the impugned charge memo dated 20.11.2000, it has been alleged that while the petitioner was working as Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer of Electrical and Mechanical Department of Chennai Port Trust, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 23.8.2000 under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the respondent, the petitioner indulged in the misconduct of demanding dowry and abetting in taking dowry and thereby attracted police action against him, apart from arrest and retention under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act and that a crime has been registered in Crime No.27 of 2000 in the All Women Police Station, Chennai-6 and therefore, that will amount to criminal offence involving moral turpitude and subversive of discipline or of good behaviour falling under Regulations 4(17) and 4(20) and contravention of Regulations 10(7)(i) and 10(7)(ii) as well as 3(1)(iii) of Madras Port Trust Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1987.
3. The above referred to provisions read as under:-
“Regulation 3(1) Every employee shall at all times-
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of an employee of the Board.
Regulation 4 Misconduct: Without prejudice to the generality of the term misconduct the following acts of omission and commission shall be treated as misconduct:-
(17) Commission of any act which amounts to a criminal offence involving moral turpitude.
(20) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour.
Regulation 10(7) No employee shall-
(i) give or take or abet the giving or taking of dowry; or
(ii) demand, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry.
Explanation- For the purpose of this Sub-Regulation, dowry has the same meaning as in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).”
A reading of the above stated provisions makes it clear that in order to call it as commission of an offence amounting to a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in Crime No. 27 of 2000 should culminate into a conviction in the trial held for that purpose.
4. It is not a case where the various clauses under which the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against contemplated disciplinary action for mere arrest for the different criminal provisions under which he was sought to be prosecuted against. Therefore, the petitioner can be held to have committed the offence in the sense that such offence alleged against him has been conclusively established in the appropriate trial proceedings wherein he has been convicted. In my view at this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioner committed any such criminal offence in order to be proceeded against under the different clauses of the Madras Port Trust Employee’s (Conduct) Regulation 1987. In such circumstances, while it is open for the respondent Port Trust to proceed against the petitioner, in the event of his ultimate conviction, at this stage, it is highly premature to state that even based on the mere arrest, the petitioner should be held to have committed the offence in order to proceed against him under the different clauses under which the impugned charge-sheet has been issued to him. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned charge-sheet has no legal basis as on date and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
5. The writ petition stands allowed reserving the respondent’s liberty to proceed against the petitioner as and when the circumstance warrants.
6. As per order dated 12.9.2002 in W.M.P. No. 4114 of 2001, date has been fixed for final hearing of the writ petition. Hence, the petition in W.P.M.P. No. 10195 of 2002 is closed as unnecessary.