T A LAXMANAN Vs. I A A I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed by the petitioner Mr. T.A. Laxmanan challeng- ing the punishment of removal inflicted upon him. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner died. His legal heirs moved CM. 5707 of 1998 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring themselves on record in place of deceased petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 17/05/1999 as no reply was filed to this application. Amended memo of parties bringing legal representatives on record was filed. When the matter was argued respondent took the preliminary objection to the effect that writ petition stood abated on the death of the petitioner and it cannot be pursued by the legal representative of the petitioner as cause of action did not survive after the death of the petitioner. Therefore before deciding the validity of the punishment imposed upon the deceased petitioner, this preliminary objection of the respondent has also to be decided. The dispute has the following factual backdrop.

(2.) Petitioner joined the respondent namely. International Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as IAAI, for short) in the year 1973 as Manager (Airport Terminal). He was promoted twice and was made Assistant Director (Operations) in November, 1983. On 18/06/1986 he was served with suspension order, suspending him with immediate effect as enquiry proceedings were contemplated against him. This was followed by memorandum of charge-sheet dated 30/07/1986 in which following Acts of misconduct were alleged against him. (i) Gross Negligence and/or dereliction of duty. (ii) Passing, undue financial benefits to employees by lack. of supervision. (iii) Misuse of official position. (iv) Lack of integrity in discharge of official duties. (v) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Authority. (vi) Conduct unbecoming of an officer of IAAI. Alongwith the charge sheet was also given a statement of all relevant facts relating to the imputations of misconduct, a list of documents and a list of witnesses.

(3.) Enquiry was held against the petitioner into the aforesaid charges on the basis whereof Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 4/05/1987 wherein the charges; against the petitioner stood proved. Regarding the first charge of "gross negligence and or dereliction of duty", the enquiry officer stated that "fixing direct responsibility on Shri Lakshmanan of dead rat in the areas remotely located, at the time when terminal was in the preliminary stages of getting operational shall be unfair". However, the enquiry officer held the charge to be partially proved stating that the petitioner "should have been more business like in recording inspection either in the log book or through incident report and merely giving a verbal account of the inspection to G.M., is not adequate."