Dismissed a decade ago, Mumbai Port Trust whistleblower fights for justice

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 chargesThe 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 weeklsquoRemoval was arbitraryrsquoSuryakant Shinde a 57yearold 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 Ministerrsquos Office Ministry of Shipping Chairman Mumbai Port Trust etc but fell into deaf earsShinde told midday ldquoAs 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 victimrdquoCiting one instance in support of his claim Shinde said that he was supposed to get a Rs 10000 reward from the Customs Department for his involvement in unearthing a R70lakh 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 madeHe said ldquoThe 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 dutyrdquoHe further said that the disciplinary committee did not take account of testimonies of cops who supported his claims and issued a showcause notice to him ldquoI was not given the disciplinary inquiry report which ideally should have been given before issuing the showcause notice Thereby they deprived me of the right to counter the report and prove my innocencerdquo Shinde saidHe said ldquoI 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 facedrdquoLawyerSpeakAdvocate Rajeshwar Panchal for Shinde said ldquoThe Bombay High court is concerned about the implementation of lsquoprincipal of natural justicersquo not being followed while taking action against whistleblowers by the employers thereby violating the very basic fundamental right of lsquoright to livelihoodrsquo as guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution and are also concerned about depriving the whistle blowers their lsquoright to be heardrsquo and lsquoright to challengersquo such uncalledfor actions which is usually done with ulterior motive by the employersrdquoPanchal said ldquoAnother 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 groundsrdquoHe added ldquoThe 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 countryrdquoPanchal added ldquoThe 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