AIR INDIA LTD Vs. ADITYA BERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the interim order dated 30 th April, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2511/2012. The said writ petition has been filed by the respondent no.1 challenging the order dated 23rd April, 2012 of the appellant terminating his services w.e.f. 30th April, 2012. As per the appellant, the respondent no.1 was employed as Co-Pilot and was put on probation; he was still on probation when the order terminating his services has been passed. The respondent no.1 filed the writ petition inter alia alleging that the order terminating his service is totally arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice as before passing the order no show cause notice was given to the respondent no.1. On 30 th April, 2012 the matter came up before the learned Single Judge for the first time when the counsel for the appellant also appeared on advance notice. The matter was argued at some length and whereafter notice of the writ petition was issued by the learned Single Judge and on the stay application filed by the respondent no.1 herein, following order has been passed:-

(2.) IT is stated that Capt. N.K. Beri is the father of the respondent no.1 who misused his position to get the respondent no.1 absorbed in the appellant. It is further stated that in the vigilance investigation conducted by the appellant it was found that induction of the respondent no.1 was not in accordance with the laid down procedures of the appellant and because of that reason the respondent no.1 who was still on probation, his services were terminated by an innocuous order. The order dated 23rd April, 2012 is of termination simplicitor and does not impose any stigma. Apart from the above, the main argument on which stress has been put by Mr. Bhasin learned counsel for the appellant, is that at the stage when the appellant was yet to file the counter affidavit, such an order staying the operation of the termination order dated 23rd April, 2012 could not have been passed. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311 wherein the Court had held as under:-

(3.) MS. Nandni Sahni, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 on the other hand has submitted that ex facie the order of termination is bad in law and the appellant has not been able to give any justification for the said order. It is argued that in these circumstances, the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge has been correctly granted. She contends that the alleged inquiry conducted by the appellant pertains to the father of the respondent no.1 and on the basis of that inquiry the respondent no.1 could not be punished that too without even following the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the least that was required in such a case was to give a show cause notice to the respondent no.1on the basis of which the respondent no.1 could have placed sufficient material before the appellant to show that his induction in the appellant was not contrary to any rules or laid down procedures. She even tried to make out a case that the CMD had the necessary powers to make such an appointment without inviting the applications from public at large. The learned counsel, on the basis of aforesaid averments, has referred to the following judgments in support of her plea that interim protection can be granted by the court:-