KAMAL PRASHAR Vs. NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Aerodrome Officer with Director General of Civil Aviation initially. He was subsequently promoted as Aerodrome Officer. National Airport Authority was set up when National Airport Authority Act, came into existence in 1985. Petitioner along with other persons working with Director General of Civil Aviation were transferred to the newly created National Airport Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sought repatriation from National Airport Authority to its parent department i.e. Directorate General of Civil Aviation on 4th June, 1986. On 4th February, 1987, respondent No.2 i.e. Director General of Civil Aviation agreed to the request of the petitioner and wrote to the respondent No.1, National Airport Authority, inter alia staling that the petitioner was posted as Priority Officer with the Director General of Civil Aviation in lieu of Shri Harbans Lal, who had retired on 31st January, 1987. The letter dated 4th February, 1987 is to the following effect:-

(2.) In the meanwhile, instead of relieving the petitioner, the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to join at Varanasi. However, the petitioner continued to represent to the respondent No.1 to relieve him from deputation and further respresented that the respondent No.1 had no authority to post him at Varanasi. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued charge sheet against the petitioner as the petitioner had not joined at Varanasi. On the basis of the charge sheet, an inquiry was initiated by the respondent No.1. Before the Inquiry Officer, petitioner took the stand that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner could not be initiated as he ceased to lie the employee of respondent No.1 after his repatriation having been agreed by the parent department on 4th February, 1987. At page 159, inquiry officer was also confronted with the problem as the petitioner belonged to the cadre of Director General of Civil Aviation. This is how, he has dealt with the problem :-

(3.) It seems that after the report of the inquiry officer, Chairman of the respondent No. l recommended major unspecified penalty and the matter was sent for consultation to the U.P.S.C. It was stated by learned counsel for the respondent that the U.P.S.C., inter alia impressed upon the respondent No.1 to first settle the matter of absorption of the petitioner. The matter is still pending with the ministry.