SHIREEN DUBASH Vs. AIR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the 1st respondent air India Ltd. as Air Hostess on October 1, 1975 and she was confirmed on October 1, 1976 after successful completion of her probationary period. The petitioner is at present holding the post of Senior Check Air hostess. On August 20/21, 1997 the petitioner was on the flight assignment on Flight No. A1 825/824, Bombay-Riyadh-Bombay. After the petitioner cleared custom check, the security personnel checked the petitioner and allegedly recovered from her some cococola cans, a mineral water bottle, toilet tissue rolls and some magazines. According to the petitioner she was falsely implicated by the security personnel of the 1st respondent and during the search her cash of US $ 985 and cheque for Rs. 6,434. 33 was found missing. She requested the security personnel to allow her to return to the aircraft and search for the missing envelope containing cash and the cheque. The security personnel refused to pay any heed to her complaint regarding stolen money and the cheque. The petitioner seems to have complained to the director of Inflight Service Department and finally filed a complaint to the police on August 24, 1997 about the stolen money and the cheque. On August 25, 1997 the 1 st respondent issued charge sheet-cum-suspension order for alleged acts of misconduct of theft and acts of subversive of discipline. The said chargesheet was received by the petitioner on September 1, 1997. Later on pursuant to the statement made by the 1st respondent before this Court in Writ petition No. 503 of 1998 the suspension of the petitioner was withdrawn. An enquiry was held into the alleged misconduct by the enquiry committee and during the enquiry three witnesses on behalf of the management were examined. Before the enquiry committee the petitioner produced a letter/communication by the custom official Mr. Jespal Sharma wherein it was stated that no such alleged item of the 1st respondent's property were amongst the petitioner's personal effects. The petitioner wanted to lead evidence of Mr. Jespal Sharma i. e. the custom official and Mr. Amarjeet singh, the Inspector of Police, who recorded the petitioner's complaint regarding stolen money and the cheque. The enquiry committee, however, disallowed the request of the petitioner on the ground that their evidence was not relevant. The petitioner produced herself as defence witness which was permitted by the enquiry committee. The enquiry committee vide its report dated August 17, 1998 found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and pursuant thereto the 1st respondent by its order dated april 19, 1999 imposed major penalty of stoppage of two annual increments which are due to the petitioner on July 1,1999 and July 1, 2000 with cumulative effect. The legality and correctness of the impugned order dated april 19,1999 is challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WE heard Mr. Cama learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shah learned counsel for the respondents on January 27, 2000. Today we also heard Mr. Talsania learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) MR. Cama learned Counsel for the petitioner raised before us several contentions. Mr. Cama submitted that the so called enquiry proceeding is clearly an attempt of victimisation. Mr. Cama urged that the petitioner had been victimised even in the past and the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner only in order to falsely implicate her. He submitted that the petitioner has been deliberately implicated by alleging possession of apparently valueless and insignificant refuse items, the theft whereof no ordinary and prudent person of the petitioner's status would resort to. Mr. Cama also urged that there is total violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not permitted to examine Mr. Jespal Sharma and Mr. Amarjeet Singh as witnesses. Mr. Cama urged that the entire enquiry is vitiated on account of refusal of the enquiry committee to permit the petitioner to examine the aforesaid two witnesses. In this behalf he relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of U. P. and Ors. (2000-I-LLJ-495) (SC)Mr. Cama also submitted that the enquiry proceeding was concluded in undue haste without giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner. Mr. Cama also submitted that the findings of the enquiry committee are entirely based on the panchanama and that the pancha's evidence disclosed that they were not present at the time when the search was taken and therefore the findings are perverse.