PUSHPA IYENGER Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER these two writ petition is an Air Hostess employed in Indian Airlines Corporation. She would state that on 14th October 1982, as she fell sick, she could not report to duty, but sent a telegram to the Medical Doctor on 16th October 1982 regarding her continued illness. It was only on 16th March 1983, she was fit to report to duty and after securing a medical fitness certificate reported to duty on that date. As officials in the first respondent-Corporation were motivated, a charge-sheet dated 21st March 1983 was issued falsely claiming that she had absented from duty from 14th October 1982, to 15th March 1983 without prior intimation, and further claiming that three letters addressed to her have been returned unserved. She gave her explanation claiming that in spite of having changed her residential address which was to the knowledge of the Corporation and as every day the pick-up transport had come and taken her from the place where she was living, the three communications have been sent to her old address, and that she had sent an intimation to the duty officer on the day of her illness and followed it by telegram, which was not at all referred to in the imputations made as against her, and therefore, the charge-sheet is baseless in spite of an enquiry fixed to be held.

(2.) TO prove that she sent a telegram, she got a communication from Post and Telegraph Department, which is to the effect that it was received by the Pharmacist on 17th October 1982, and when he was cross-examined he admitted having received it and sent it to the Doctor. Therefore, when they could not justify the charges framed against her, in order to harass her, a second charge-sheet was framed on 23rd November 1983, stating that she has misbehaved with the security guards on 2nd November 1983 and 14th November 1983 when she came to the Airlines House for participating in the enquiry, which was held on the first charge-sheet. She having been rudely dealt with by the security staff at the instance of motivated persons of the Corporation, on 14th November 1983 itself she had mentioned this to the Enquiry Officer and followed it up by a telegram dated 16th November 1983 of what had been done by security personnel and others. To this charge-sheet, she gave a reply on 12th December 1983, and in spite of it, on the second charge, the enquiry was to be conducted by the second respondent, and one R. Pushpavanam was to function as presenting officer.

(3.) AS objected to on the earlier occasions, even though first respondent was represented by an officer, who is a legally trained person and herself unable to secure a friend as required under S. O. 32 of Standing Orders (Regulations) concerning Discipline and Appeals in Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), she sought permission for engaging a lawyer to defend herself. Mr. Pushpavanam is a law graduate and an experienced and legally trained person in conducting enquiries, and hence, principles of natural justice would be violated unless she is allowed to be defended by a lawyer. On this request being rejected by letter dated 13th January 1984, she preferred W. P. No. 595 of 1984, resting her claim on what has been held in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. D. R. Nadkarni and others (1983-I-LLJ-1 ).