SUBRAMANIAN V IYER Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBRAMANIAN V. Iyer-petitioner herein challenges by means of this writ petition the order dated 2nd August, 1990 whereby he has been dismissed from service by Air India-the respondent and prays that the said order be set aside and Air India be directed to reinstate him and with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE controversy arises in the circumstances which we briefly narrate hereunder:--The petitioner initially joined Air India as Stenographer in operation department in the year 1969. He was promoted as Operation Assistant in the year 1972 and then as Assistant flight Purser (Staff No. 27104) in the month of August, 1979. On 18th March, 1988 his residence was searched by the Enforcement Officers under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA) and allegedly, foreign currency, one gold biscuit and some incriminating documents were found. He was arrested. While the petitioner was in custody, by order dated 22-23 March, 1988, he was suspended with effect from 21st March, 1988. The Enforcement Directorate (FERA) issued six notices to the petitioner to show cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under section 51 of FERA should not be held against him for contravention of provisions of FERA. The petitioner through his Advocate responded to the said notices. The Directorate of Enforcement (FERA) on 29th January, 1990 imposed total penalty of Rs. 1,42,500/- upon the petitioner by finding him guilty for contravention of provisions of sections 8 and 9 of FERA. The petitioner preferred an appeal before FERA Appellate Board, New Delhi. Upon petitioners conviction under FERA, Air India issued notice dated 21st May, 1990 to the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him in accordance with Air India Service Regulations (for short "service Regulations") on the basis of the penalty/punishment imposed upon him by the Directorate of Enforcement (FERA ). The petitioner responded to the said notice and submitted that the appeal against the order dated 29th January, 1990 passed by Directorate of Enforcement (FERA) is pending before the Appellate Board and therefore, further action should not be taken until disposal of said appeal. On 2nd August, 1990 under Regulation 44 (2) of Air India Employees Service Regulations, the petitioner was dismissed from service. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner appealed to the Managing Director against the order of dismissal but since nothing was done, he filed the present writ petition in the month of October, 1990. It is material to notice here that during the pendency of writ petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before FERA Appellate Board, New Delhi against the order of Directorate of Enforcement (FERA) dated 29th January, 1990 came to be disposed of on 3rd November, 1999. The FERA Appellate Board allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioner and the order dated 29-1-1990 was set aside. The petitioner has amended the writ petition incorporating necessary facts in respect of the appeal decided by FERA Appellate Board on 3-11-1999. The petitioner also applied to Air India for withdrawing the order of dismissal in view of the order of Appellate Board setting aside the order of his conviction under FERA but nothing was done by Air India.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent did not dispute that upon the order dated 29th January, 1990 passed by the Directorate of Enforcement (FERA) whereby the petitioner was held guilty for contravention of provisions of FERA and penalty was imposed upon him, having been set aside by the FERA Appellate Board, New Delhi vide order dated 3-11-1999, the dismissal of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The only issue raised before us is upon dismissal order dated 2nd August, 1990 being set aside whether petitioner deserves to be reinstated with all consequential benefits or he be granted reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.