V C NAIR Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent-Air India. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and penalty of reduction to a lower rank has been imposed on him by Ext. P3 order. Against the same, the petitioner has filed Ext. P4 appeal. THE petitioner approached this Court complaining that Ext. P4 appeal has not been disposed of. THE respondent has produced Ext. R1(a), which the respondents' claim is the order passed on Ext. P4 appeal. THE petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been served with Ext. R1(a) order at any time althouogh it bears the date 14.7.2010. He has therefore filed I.A.No. 151507/2010 seeking to amend the writ petition including a challenge against Ext. R1(a) also, which was allowed today.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that Ext. R1(a) order is clearly violative of principles of natural justice insofar as it is an one line order giving no reasons why the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him as Ext. P4 cannot be accepted. THE learned counsel for the respondents would contend that Ext. R1(a) order is proper. Although it does not give elaborate reasons, the same shows that the appellate authority has completely agreed with the order of the disciplinary authority, which is a very detailed order considering the contentions of the petitioner, is his contention.

(3.) NO doubt, it does not give any reasons why any of the grounds raised in Ext. P4 are not acceptable. The petitioner has specifically raised an allegation of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of assistance of a lawyer. He has specifically stated that the witnesses to be examined are of very high rank and the petitioner was allowed an employee as defence assistance who is a much inferior officer compared with the witness of the management and therefore the defence assistant was afraid of cross examining the witnesses effectively. I am of opinion that that was a ground which the appellate authority ought to have considered very seriously apart from the other grounds raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner. In any event, the appellate authority ought to have given adequate reasons as to why the grounds raised by the petitioner in Ext. P4 appeal cannot be accepted. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ext. R1(a) is a proper order in an appeal.