N SUNDARAM Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the constitution of India for the issuance of a writ quashing the order of the regional Director of the first respondent - Indian Airlines Corporation in maa/rd/admn. /1-6/581, dated 9-1-1981 confirming the order of the second respondent - Commercial Manager in his reference MAA: CM:admn. , 1-6/11058, dated 4-9-1980 and pass such other'necessary orders.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioner necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are these THE petitioner was employed as Traffic Assistant in the first respondent-Indian Airlines corporation at Madras Airport. He was transferred to Vijayawada, and this transfer was challenged by him in vain in W. P. No. 2628 of 78 on the file of this Court. He then reported for duty at Vijayawada and was working there as Traffic assistant. On 6-11-1978 he applied for privilege leave from 8-12-1978 to 31-12-1978 for giving surgical treatment to his wife for sceptic tousils and enlargement of facial glands and for searching alternative accommodation to enable him to vacate the Airlines Quarters at Madras. He did not receive any communication from the Indian Airlines either sanctioning or refusing the leave. According to the petitioner, invariably leave was sanctioned after the commencement of the leave period but where leave was refused it would be communicated immediately. As he did not receive any order of refusal of leave, he proceeded on leave on 8-12-1978 on the assumption that the leave would be sanctioned. On reaching Madras he secured an alternative accommodation in a couple of days and his wifes surgery was postponed. He, therefore spent the rest of his leave abroad. Seven months after he rejoined duty at Vijayawada he was served with a charge-memo dated 6-6-1979. THE following were the two charges framed against him: 1. Absence without leave for more than 8 days without sufficient grounds or proper or sufficient explanation, 2. THE reasons given in the leave application were false and therefore it amounted to dishonesty in connection with the business of the indian Airlines Corporation. THE petitioner submitted his explanation in detail. An enquiry was ordered. By his letter dated 13-10-1979 the petitioner pointed out that the presiding Officer conducting the case on behalf of the management had legal qualifications and was experienced in conducting disciplinary proceedings, that none of the employees of the Indian Airlines Corporation whom the petitioner could approach for the purpose of representing him as a friend in the disciplinary proceedings was possessed of legal qualifications of equal training and it was therefore necessary that he should be allowed to have the assistance of a lawyer to defend the case against him. He requested that he may be permitted to engage the service of Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, Advocate, No. 41, Law chambers, High Court, Madras. This request was turned down. THE petitioner participated in the enquiry under protest and the enquiry officer by his order nil, found the petitioner guilty of both the charges. THEreafter, the punishing authority'the second respondent herein by his notice dated 21-7-1980 called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. THE petitioner sent his explanation on 15-8-1980 and the final orders were passed by the second respondent on 4-9-1980 removing the petitioner from service. THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Regional Director, Indian airlines and the Appellate Authority, according to him, without properly considering the various points raised by him in his appeal, rejected the same by his order dated 9-1-1981. it is this order that is challenged in this writ on several grounds.

(3.) A case almost identical with the one on hand and which related to the very same respondent viz. , the Indian Airlines Corporation, came up for consideration before a single Judge of this Court in Pushpa Iyengar v. The Indian Airlines Corporation and Others, (1988)1 L. L. J. 385. There in that case also Mr. R. Pushpavanam, Assistant Manager was the presenting officer on behalf of the Corporation. The request of the delinquent employee for engaging a legal practitioner was turned down on this was challenged before this Court. The learned Judge observed: 'in W. P. No. 595 of 1984, the presenting officer is mr. R. Pushpavanam, Assistant Manager/ Personnel Services. He is admittedly a law graduate and has acquired expertise in conducting disciplinary proceedings. In spite of being fully aware that there is no provision in Standing Orders for a presenting officer to be appointed by Corporation had chosen to enlist the services of a legally trained person, and therefore in the light of what is held in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 710, in spite of a prohibition existing, once the authority chooses to take the aid of the legal practitioner or legal adviser or legally trained person to present its case, to avoid breach of Art. 14 of the Constitution, a similar facility should not be denied to the delinquent". I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge.