Unfairly dismissed a decade ago, Mumbai Port Trust whistleblower fights for justice

Suryakant Shinde started working with MbPT in 1989 and was due to retire in 2023

A whistleblower, who used to work with the Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) and assisted preventive security agencies in safeguarding internal security of the country, has been fighting a long battle to get justice after he was dismissed from service a decade ago over frivolous charges.

The matter has finally reached the Bombay High Court and the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta has requested Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh and defence lawyer Rajeshwar Panchal to research on precedent court orders, if any, in similar cases and assist the court in deciding the matter. The matter will be heard in the coming week.

‘Removal was arbitrary'

Suryakant Shinde, a 57-year-old from Nerul, started working with MbPT in 1989 and was due to retire in 2023. He was removed from job on March 21, 2009 through an arbitrary and malicious decision by his superiors, he claimed. Shinde had been making numerours complaints against wrongdoings inside the port trust since 1999 to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Shipping, Chairman Mumbai Port Trust, etc., but fell into deaf ears.

Shinde told mid-day, "As an assistant security officer, I was responsible for sharing intelligence inputs with law enforcing and preventive agencies viz Mumbai police and the Customs Department. I had also tipped against certain MbPT officials who were involved in unlawful acts, but instead of applauding my work, my own superiors made me a victim."

Citing one instance in support of his claim, Shinde said that he was supposed to get a Rs 10,000 reward from the Customs Department for his involvement in unearthing a R70-lakh gold smuggling case, but his superior allegedly returned the reward saying Shinde was not part of the operation. When asked why the superior did that, he said it was because he had not named the superior, who was not a part of the probe, when the reward list was made.

He said, "The second instance was after the August 25, 2003 blasts. I was specifically called by the Mumbai police for assisting them in getting leads and I had mentioned the same in the official register, but my superior accused me of misconduct and charge sheeted me in 2004, despite knowing I was on confidential official duty."

He further said that the disciplinary committee did not take account of testimonies of cops who supported his claims and issued a show-cause notice to him. "I was not given the disciplinary inquiry report, which ideally should have been given before issuing the show-cause notice. Thereby, they deprived me of the right to counter the report and prove my innocence," Shinde said.

He said, "I am hopeful that the Bombay HC will give justice to me. I have pleaded to get my service restored with the promotion I was entitled to had I not been dismissed, get my salary and other dues cleared from 2009 till date. However, the worst damage was the stain on my reputation and the emotional, mental, financial and physical agony my family and I faced."

LawyerSpeak

Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal, for Shinde, said, "The Bombay High court is concerned about the implementation of ‘principal of natural justice' not being followed while taking action against whistleblowers by the employers, thereby violating the very basic fundamental right of ‘right to livelihood' as guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution, and are also concerned about depriving the whistle blowers their ‘right to be heard' and ‘right to challenge' such uncalled-for actions, which is usually done with ulterior motive by the employers."

Panchal said , "Another reason to move the HC is that during the internal departmental appellate proceedings, the order of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement from service by the appellate body, which petitioner did not agree to and decided to fight the case on legal grounds."

He added, "The petitioner was at the peak of his working career, and had a family to support, but was dismissed from service, as he had preferred to challenge this unconstitutional arbitrary order which was falsely levied on him even as he fulfilled his duties to serve the nation and safeguard the internal security of the country."

Panchal added, "The law point to be discussed before the Bombay HC was that the petitioner allegedly committed misconduct under eight heads of charges. It was argued that out of the eight heads, four heads did not amount to misconduct and that these eight heads were only added to show the gravity of the case against the petitioner.