AIR INDIA LTD Vs. LIBIO FRANCISCO COLACO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE First Respondent was employed as a Traffic Assistant in Air India on 22nd March, 1977 and was promoted on 1st January, 1982 as a Senior Traffic Assistant. Some time in 1988 he came to be posted at the Cargo Complex (Export Section). It was alleged that on 14th July, 1988 the First Respondent was to travel to Singapore upon obtaining an "Interline" ticket of Air Canada. The checked in luggage of the First Respondent was allegedly searched by the customs authorities and Indian Currency to the tune of Rs.6 lacs was stated to have been recovered. The First Respondent, it is al -eged, was detained by the customs authorities and admitted that he was carrying currency in the amount of Rs. 6 lacs to Singapore in order to bring gold bars to India. The statement of the First Respondent that was recorded by the customs authorities has been annexed at Exh. A to the Petition. The First Respondent was placed under suspension immediately on the same day viz. 14th July, 1988. An adjudication took place under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 against the First Respondent and it in common ground that by an order dated 17th November, 1992 a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - came to be imposed on him. The First Respondent was also prosecuted for offences under the Customs Act, 1962, but came to be acquitted on 23rd August, 1996 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He was thereafter charge -sheeted for misconduct under the standing orders for a breach of law applicable to the establishment and for an act subversive of discipline. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 30th September, 1996 holding that the charges against the First Respondent have been proved. A show cause notice was issued to the First Respondent on 7th November, 1996 by the competent authority to explain why the findings should not be accepted, to which the First Respondent submitted a reply. A second show cause notice was issued to the First Respondent on 5th May, 1997 calling upon him to explain why he should not be awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to which there was a reply dated 14th May, 1997. The disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that upon the finding of misconduct that was established during the course of the enquiry, the First Respondent should be dismissed from service.

(3.) THE sole ground upon which the dispute in the present case turns, relates to the finding of the Tribunal declining to grant approval on the ground that the First Respondent had not been paid his increment in computing his wages of one month under S.33(2)(b). Now in order to appreciate the correctness of this finding and the rival submissions which have been urged questioning, and in support of the finding respectively, it would be necessary to note that the payment which was made to the First Respondent of Rs. 10,225/ - was constituted as follows :