Judgment 1. THE writ petitioner is in the employment of the Calcutta Port Trust for last 25 years, now posted in River training Wing of the Calcutta Port Trust as Junior Executive Engineer. 2. HE has also been duly elected the President of the Engineer Officers' Association, a registered body which was recognised by the Calcutta Port authority. By resolution dated 3rd May, 1989, the members of the said Association resolved and empowered the President to write letter to safeguard the interest and object of the said Association. After such resolution the petitioner wrote a letter dated 16th May, 1989 addressed to the minister of Surface Transport, Ministry of Transport (Port Wing), New Delhi with a copy forwarded to the Prime Minister of India, the Secretary (Ports), Ministry of Transport, New Delhi, the Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal, the Chief Secretary Government of West Bengal and the deputy Secretary (Ports) Ministry of Transport Department, of Surface transport, Government of India. Several representations were made to the authority concerned for the last two years in connection with the improvement of draft and filling up of the senior position in Haldia/Calcutta through professionally qualified Hydraulic and Harbour Engineers of Calcutta Port trust but without any effect. The letter in question sent by the petitioner as the President of the Association was written to the higher authorities in order to see that the proper procedure is followed to prevent any further loss of money by unwanted steps taken without considering the persons who have got particular sites experience would be in a position to give proper advise upon discussion. Save as aforesaid there was no intention to write such letter and as such any allegations contrary thereto and inconsistent therewith are denied emphatically. Save as aforesaid there was no intention to write such letter and as such any allegations contrary thereto and inconsistent therewith are denied emphatically. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum being No. 7806/con/ce/5 dated 15th June, 1989 charging him that he is guilty of an offence under Clause 17 of the Calcutta port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1987 violating the said clause as indicated below in the said charge-sheet : (a) that the petitioner committed misconduct for writing a letter dated 16th May, 1989 as stated hereunder; (b) the letter was addressed to the persons named hereunder and sending copies to the persons named thereunder as elected President of the Calcutta Port Trust Engineers Officers' Association to make himself prominent and for personal gain for higher post or any other amenities ; (c) to gain personal interest which is involved in the matter of filling up of the senior posts of the Department; (d) to influence on the Port administration in the matter of filling up of the senior posts of the Chief Engineers Department for his personal gain. " In the said Memorandum it was directed to submit an answer to the said charge within a fortnight from the receipt there of. By the letter dated 24th June, 1989 the Respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was appointed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on the charge meted out against him before the expiration of the fortnight time as earlier given to submit his explanation. On 27th June, 1989 the petitioner duly submitted his- explanation to the charge alleged to have been made against him denying each and every allegations made therein and draw the attention that the clause 17 of the concerned Regulation cannot be said to be applicable on the basis of the facts disclosed nor there are any ingredients to bring home the charge under clause 17 by any stretch of imagination in the scope and ambit of the said clause. The letter in question would not reveal in any manner whatsoever that the said letter was written to the authorities concerned for the benefit and gain of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and as such the petitioner claims that the relevant portion of the letter indicates that was not for his personal gain and to achieve his ambition for any higher post and in any other gain as sought to be suggested. It is an undeniable fact that the said letter was written to enable the authorities concerned to take proper steps in the matter having had discussion and exchange of views of the Engineers who are working and familiar with the locality and etc. After getting the Charge Memo the same was forwarded to the Association for necessary observation and on getting the charge-memo the Association wrote a letter on July 3. 1989 addressed to the Chairman and forwarded the copy of the same to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10. 3. THE letter was written on 7th July, 1989 by the Respondent No. 4 to the petitioner to appear before him on 12th July, 1989 to have preliminary enquiry as to the charge stated therein and the petitioner applied for extension of time. The petitioner in this writ petition prays that the purported charge against the petitioner be set aside and quashed as the same is illegal, not warranted in law and at the same time it is a mala fide one. 4. THE Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have jointly filed an affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Respondent No. 5 to contest the writ petition. The allegations made therein may be briefly stated as follows. The copy of the, letter sent by the writ petitioner to the higher authorities was not endorsed to the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta or any of its responsible officers. A copy of the said letter was received by the Respondents through the, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and also from the Ministry of Surface Transport. The letter no where mentions about any resolution dated 3rd May, 1989 allegedly taken by the members of the Association. The Port administration is aware of the problem regarding the draught in the Riven hooghly and all possible steps were taken for the purpose of improving the draught of the river. The letter no where mentions about any resolution dated 3rd May, 1989 allegedly taken by the members of the Association. The Port administration is aware of the problem regarding the draught in the Riven hooghly and all possible steps were taken for the purpose of improving the draught of the river. A comprehensive scheme for improvement of the navigational channel has been undertaken at a cost of Rs. 4. 50 crores and the work is in progress. The Project is monitored by a Technical advisory Committee set up by the Government of India. The representation of any Association if and when received are also duly considered by the appropriate authority. The Respondents deny that the letter was written by the writ petitioner as a President of the Association without any other intention. They contend that the letter was written in self interest and with the sole intention to sub-serve the cause of the petitioner. 5. THE writ petitioner at that point of time was the Senior-most Junior Executive Engineer and was trying to create pressure from outside for filling up the senior posts in the Chief Engineers Department at Calcutta which were lying vacant for sometime due to various reasons so that the petitioner could get promotion to the post of Senior Executive Engineer. The problem of the river Hooghly is a very complicated one and all out efforts have been made to combat and tackle those extensive problems with the help of Government and acknowledged foreign experts. There was no other reason except the mentioned above in combining the matter with that of filling up of the senior posts in the departments. The petitioner signed letters written to different authorities without giving any copy to the Port administration so as to bring in outside influence on the port administration for filling up higher posts and by creating such pressure on the port administration he wanted to fulfil his personal interest and get the promotion to the higher post. There were some constraint of the Port authority to fill up the post of Chief Engineer, two posts of deputy Chief Engineer and two posts of Senior Executive Engineer. The petitioner was well aware of that position and in spite of that the petitioner for reasons not far to seek had written the said letter dated 16th may, 1989 to create outside pressure for making personal gain. The petitioner was well aware of that position and in spite of that the petitioner for reasons not far to seek had written the said letter dated 16th may, 1989 to create outside pressure for making personal gain. It is denied that the said letter was written to enable the authority concerned to take proper steps in the matter or for having discussions or exchange of views of the Engineers as alleged. The Respondents deny that the charge-sheet is illegal, unwarranted in law or is mala fide. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. 6. THERE is no denying the fact that the petitioner is the President of the Engineer Officers Association, a registered body recognised by the calcutta Port Trust. The charge against the present petitioner is that he contravenes the provision of Regulation 17 of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1987. The Regulation 17 reads as follows : "no employee shall bring or attempt to bring any political or further influence to appear upon any superior authority to afford his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Board. " 7. THE writ petitioner has written this impugned letter to various authorities other than Calcutta Port Trust on 16th May, 1989. That letter has been sent in the Letter Head of the Association and as its president. 8. IN that letter drawing the attention of the Ministry of Surface Transport, ministry of Transport (Port Wing), Union of India, the petitioner as the president of the Association draws the attention of the Minister to remove the problem of large scale situation and sedimentation and Hydraulic Study of Calcutta Port Trust area. The association expressed the view that the matter was not being tackled by the concerned authority properly. After drawing attention to the above the following observation has been made : "in the meantime senior positions under maintenance and comprehensive schemes are being filled up not by Calcutta Port Trust Engineers with long experience of River Training but by outsiders without the knowledge of the complexities of the Hooghly estuary. Under the circumstances, you are requested to make a thorough investigation through impartial personnel so that the realities of the situation is revealed for the benefit of Haldia/Calcutta Port. Under the circumstances, you are requested to make a thorough investigation through impartial personnel so that the realities of the situation is revealed for the benefit of Haldia/Calcutta Port. " The letter even though addressed to the outside agency does not on the face of it create any impression that the petitioner was writing the letter to bring outside influence to the Port authority for his personal gain. 9. THE fact that the petitioner, was the senior-most Junior Executive Engineer would not alter the position made in the letter that some outsiders were working without considering the case of Engineers of the Port authority. The Association has the right to make representation to the Port authority as well as to the Minister of Surface Transport in furtherance of the cause of the Association members. This letter can only be treated as a letter by the President of the Association to expouse the interest of the members of the Association which may include the writ petitioner himself because he is also an engineer under the Calcutta Port Trust. 10. THE letter on the face of it does not make any whisper about the case of the petitioner that he being the senior-most Junior Executive Engineer has not been given any promotion. If such representation were made to the Minister of Surface Transport, by the President, being the actual person involved then in such a case there would have been justification for the Port authority to initiate action against the petitioner under clause 17 of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1987. I am unable to accept the contention of the respondents that the real intention of that letter was to aggrandise the self interest of the writ petitioner. The allegation of the concerned respondent in the impugned charge-sheet to that effect appears to be far fetched and the letter of the chairman to the Minister of Surface Transport being absolutely general in nature, the impugned charge-sheet that by writing such letter the petitioner wanted to bring outside influence for his personal gain does not at all bear out. The petitioner being the President of the Association can make such representation not only to the Port authority but also to the union Ministry of Surface Transport because the Minister is the in-charge of all the Ports within India. The petitioner being the President of the Association can make such representation not only to the Port authority but also to the union Ministry of Surface Transport because the Minister is the in-charge of all the Ports within India. The Respondents cannot dispute that the association can make the legitimate grievances against the conduct of the Calcutta Port authority and make suitable representation to the higher authorities to redress the legitimate grievances of the members of the association. The impugned letter is exactly one such letter. It could have been sent by any other executive of the Association. Only because the petitioner being the President is the senior-most Junior Executive Engineer would not at all alter the position. In that view of the matter. I am of the view that the concerned authority of the Calcutta Port was not at all justified to issue charge-sheet against the petitioner only because he had addressed on behalf of the association the letter dated may 26, 1989 to the Minister of Surface Transport of the Union of India with copy to various other authorities. If the President of the recognised association on writing such general letter to the Ministry of Surface transport putting forward their grievances to the Minister for and on behalf of the members of the Association, then this will have the effect of interference with the legitimate right of a. recognised Association of the employees to ventilate the grievances to the authorities concerning the members of the Association. In that view of the matter I allow the writ petition and quash the charge-sheet framed against the present writ petitioner which is annexure 'b' to the writ petition All parties shall act on the signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment. There is no order as to costs.