MANOHAR P KHARKHAR Vs. RAGHURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the two petitioners, seeks to get the order of termination of their services dated 29th April, 1981 under Regulation 48 of Air India Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations") quashed. Petitioner No. 1 was the Director of Engineering and the head of the Engineering Department while petitioner No. 2 was Deputy Director of Engineering (Maintenance) and the head of the Maintenance Division in the service of respondent No. 2, Air India Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") on the date of the impugned orders. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the said post on 5th February, 1980 and was confirmed therein on 1st March, 1981. On the date of the impugned orders, petitioner No. 1 was aged 55 years while petitioner No. 2 57 years, their dates of birth being 7th November, 1925 and 24th April, 1924 respectively.

(2.) The petitioners were responsible for the maintenance of the aircrafts owned by the Corporation. Boeing 707 aircraft (hereinafter referred to as 'Makalu") had returned from Abu Dhabi to Bombay on 15th April, 1981. Makalu was earmarked for a special VVIP flight at the meeting of the engineers of the Corporation. The Prime Minister was to use it for her flight abroad during the period from 5th May, 1981 to 15th May, 1981 which fact was within the knowledge of the petitioners and a number of there engineering and security personnel. Makalu was due for P-3 checks on return from Abu Dhabi on 15th April, P. 3 checks involve large scale dismantling of the aircraft. It is virtually stripped open and/or its various parts and cables are exposed for inspection and testing. In this process of routine inspection on 17th April, 1981 all the cables were found in a satisfactory condition except for one elevator cable located under the floor board in the rear lavatory area. The said cable was found to have been slightly frayed. The notes of inspection recorded in the prescribed form indicated that some wires of this cable were found broken as a result of normal wear and tear.

(3.) The Maintenance Division decided to replace the frayed cable. The routine inspection and rectification work of Makalu in terms of P-3 check continued on 17th and 18th April, 1981. No work could be done on 19th April, 1981, the same being Sunday. On 20th April, 1981 a new cable was installed in place of the said frayed cable. In the process of tensioning of the system for rigging the control, it was discovered that one of the four elevator cable could not be tensioned. The Maintenance Division decided to replace this second cable, suspecting that the same might have been stretched during the service. In the process of removal of this suspected stretched cable the same was found to have been badly damaged at the location above the wing centre section. The damage was found to consist of breakage of some of the wires and some strands coming apart. All control cable, therefore, were reinspected by the Maintenance Division. In the process of reinspection it was found that four more cables were damaged. Some were found to have been cut-damage at the points of cuts being fairly substantial. These four cables were also replaced. The report of the Maintenance Division disclosed that damage to these cables was due to intentional application of external force and not to normal wear and tear. This being found to be a clear case of sabotage, the petitioners themselves at once reported it to the Deputy Chairman of the Corporation, Shri Sharma and lodged first information report with the CBI on 26th April, 1981.