ASHOK KUMAR ARYA Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITYOF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was on 21st October, 1980 appointed as an Airport Officer (Operations) with the respondent Airport Authority of India. However, owing to an incident in the night between 7th and 8th June, 1987, the petitioner on 8th June, 1987 was put under suspension and served with a charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Airport Authority on 26th September, 1989 passed an order of termination of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred W.P.(C)917/1990 in this court against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the departmental appeal of the petitioner was also turned down on 20th August, 1990. The said writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge of this court on 9th July, 1998 holding that there was absolutely no evidence against the petitioner and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was perverse. The respondent Airport Authority preferred LPA 400/1998. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 30th August, 2005, upheld the order of the Single Judge of setting aside of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, but only on the ground of non-furnishing of tentative reasons by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer and non furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for decision afresh. While ordering so it was observed

(2.) The petitioner preferred SLP Civil 25994/2005 to the Supreme Court against the judgment aforesaid of the Division Bench. The respondent Airport Authority of India was admittedly unrepresented before the Supreme Court. The said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 16th January, 2006 without issuance of notice to the respondent Airport Authority with the following order:

(3.) It is the admitted position that the Disciplinary Authority again passed an order on 28th April, 2006 of dismissal of the petitioner. On enquiry it is informed that the petitioner again preferred a departmental appeal on 30th October, 2006. The said appeal is informed to have been dismissed on 27th February, 2007. The counsel for the petitioner also confirms that the petitioner has not preferred any remedy against the order dated 28th April, 2006 of the Disciplinary Authority or the order dated 27th February, 2007 of the Departmental Appellate Authority. The counsel for the respondent Airport Authority on 16th May, 2007 contended before this court that the petitioner having not challenged the fresh order of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, this writ petition has become infructuous.