RAJIV BAHADUR Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working with Indian Airlines, as Deputy Manager (Office Administration). He submitted application for voluntary retirement on 26.6.1996. His application Was accepted and he was permitted to retire voluntarily of 15.7.1996. His dues, as a result of the aforesaid retirement, were worked out and paid to him. In this writ petition, he challenges the order dated 15.7.1996 by which he was voluntarily retired, as arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.

(2.) The factual matrix around which petitioner has woven his case can be summerised first. Petitioner is a victim of 'dwarfism' and is a congenitally handicapped person. He got employment with Indian Airlines Corporation, respondent No. 1 on 25.3.1969 as Stenographer. He was promoted from time to time and in January 1991. He got promotion as Deputy Manager (Office Administration). He claims that he was an efficient employee who had been performing his duties with dedication and honesty and he could overcome his being congentially handicapped person due to his hard work. It was for this reason that he had the experience of working with top executives of the respondent and he was. posted with officiating Director (Finance) Mr. R.L. Saxena in April 1994. However with the said posting his period of misfortune began. The petitioner alleges that at that time Managing Director of respondent had his favourits in the matter of appointment to the post of Director (Finance) and he was not in favour of Mr. Saxena for appointment to the said coveted post although Mr. Saxena was the seniormost candidate and was officiating as Director (Finance). At that time certain newspapers reported that there was some tension between the Chairman and the Managing Director. Incensed by this bad publicity an investigation was ordered and petitioner became the focus of suspicion only because he was working with Mr. Saxena, one of the rejected candidates for promotion. Respondent No.2 somehow believed the petitioner had obtained the letter dated 9.8.1994 written by Shri Padmanabiah, the then Chairman of the Corporation and alleged to have added a note " An eye opener case of MD's exceeding his delegated authority on his Adviser's advise. Continuation on Ad-hoc Selection Boards for which MD has no authority. What a way to choose the favourites and bluff the Board subsequently! Should such an MD continue." Which was the basis of charge of misconduct against the petitioner. The prolonged enquiry process initiated against him lasted for about 22 months caused his nervous breakdown. On top of it, he was denied his natural and fundamental right of access to documents and obtain copies thereof from the Management for the purpose of making his defence, which was his basic right. To add to the Petitioner's misery, he was also deprived of payment of subsistence allowance for over 3 months and whatever subsistence allowance and other payments were paid to him were not even correctly reflected in the statements issued from time to time. The petitioner had to go through this traumatic experience for no rhyme or reason and was continuously ill-treated and further even before the alleged guilt could be established, his name was struck off from the rolls, of the Planning Department in 1995 and he was not treated as being on the Standard Force of the Planning Department, contrary to the rules and regulations of the respondent. He was not assigned any duty, continuously humilitated and insulted. But he was determined to get himself cleared off the false charges levelled against him. Though the petitioner's suspension was revoked by the Respondents after sometime the petitioner was deliberately kept without assigning any duties by the Respondents.

(3.) According to the petitioner, under the aforesaid compelling circumstances, duress and coercion he was forced to apply for voluntary retirement and he submitted application for this purpose on 26.6.1996. The petitioner was aged 47 years atthat time and a service of 11 years was stilt left. The letter dated 26.6.1996 reads as under: