PREM KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. AIR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 15-5-1990. In the charge sheet it was alleged that the petitioner being a staff member applied for and was authorised a staff concessional air passage bombay/delhi/bombay against which he was issued on 15-1-1988 a ticket No. 098-403062 against payment of Rs. 356/ -. It was then alleged that the petitioner passed on the said ticket to one Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate, who has approached him to obtain for himself a full fare ticket of Rs. 2170/- which was to be defrayed from the several loans advanced to him by Mohan Lal earlier. The said Mohan lai was not happy to receive a staff concessional passage ticket issued to the petitioner in lieu of the desired full fare ticket. Said Mr. Mohanlal reported the matter to the respondent company whereupon the petitioner paid Mr. Mohan Lal the sum of Rs. 1850/- leaving a balance of Rs. 320/- to be paid, and collected the said ticket back. It was then alleged that on further investigation into by the Vigilance division, it was revealed that one ticket No. 098-395414 issued in favour of the petitioner was utilized for travel on the sector Bombay/delhi by flight AI-306 on 6-11-1987 arriving at Delhi at 18. 15 hrs. The leave record of the petitioner indicated that petitioner was on a day's sick leave on 6-11-1987 and his attendance card was showing that he was on duty at Bombay between 6. 24 am and 13. 28 hrs on 7-11-1987. On interrogation by the vigilance officer, petitioner contended that he had used his international ticket for travel Delhi/bombay but was unable to produce the jacket of the relevant ticket. There were only two flights namely AI-108 and AI-888 departing Delhi after the arrival of Flight AI-306 at Delhi on 6-11-1987 and reaching Bombay before 06. 00 hrs. on 7-11-1987. Verifications of the flight coupons of these two flights revealed that no flight coupon pertaining to petitioner was uplifted on these flights. It was therefore, concluded that the petitioner's ticket bearing No. 098-395414 was allowed to be used by someone else for travel Bombay/delhi on Flight No. AI-306 of 6-11-1987. It was therefore, set out that the acts on the part of the petitioner constitute misconduct under Air India Employee's Service Regulations as also Air India passage Regulations. The petitioner was therefore, charged for the following misconducts : 1) Failure to maintain absolute integrity and conducting yourself in a manner not conducive to the best interests, credit and prestige of the corporation. 2) Fraud in connection with the business of the Corporation. 3) Breach of rules, regulations and orders applicable to the establishment. 4) Commission of acts subversive of discipline. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation with reference to the above charges within seven days from the receipt of the same. An enquiry was conducted in which petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled.

(2.) A second chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner dated 17-12-1992. It was set out therein that the petitioner had at about 0100 hrs. on 11 november, 1992 approached the Check-in-counters operated for flight DL-107/11/11/92 with a Delta Airline ticket No. 20011496374-0062111308271 and indian passport K-362513 issued at Bombay on 6-1-1991 and presented petitioner's travel documents for check-in at Bombay airport. The petitioner had no check-in baggage and was carrying only a hand baggage. As per the practice mr. J. Vallodo security agent of Delta Airline examined the travel documents of the petitioner and questioned him regarding purpose of his visit to New York without check baggage and reason for buying a full fare ticket when he was entitled for free/concessional/gratis tickets, being an employee of Air India. The petitioner informed him that he had exhausted his passages and he was proceeding to New York to attend to urgent work. Since the explanation offered by him was not convincing the matter was referred to Mr. S. K. Sharma, Delta security incharge who advised Mr. J. Vallado security to allow the Petitioner to check in on the flight. It is then set out that Delta Airline flight DL-107/11/11/192 was operating from security hold No. 4 and the passengers admitted in the security hold after frisking were directed to board flight when the departure was announced. At the boarding gate while carrying out documentation checks, the security staff of delta Airlines found that passenger presenting the boarding card issued in favour of petitioner was not the same who had presented the documents for checking at the check-in counters. He therefore, detained the passenger and summoned Mr. S. K. Sharma, Security incharge, Delta Air Line Bombay. During the interrogation and documents checks, it came to light that the passenger was one mr. Billo Joginder Singh, a sikh aged about 25 years and the travel documents in his possession were forged. The matter was therefore, referred to ACP, immigration Sahar International Airport, Bombay for taking necessary legal action. Since the petitioner was involved in the said Act, the petitioner was arrested by the Sahar Airport Police station at 04. 00 hrs. at 13-11-1992. It was then set out that it is an evidence that the petitioner helped the said passenger Mr. Billo Joginder Singh in-arranging for boarding card for flight DL 107 on presentation of forged travel documents and thus connived in the commission of the said offence. The chargesheet then sets out that the above acts on the part of the petitioner constitute misconduct of the Model Standing Orders (Central) applicable to the petitioner and petitioner was charged as under : 1. Fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of the corporation. 2. Breach of law applicable to the establishment. 3. Commission of an act subversive of discipline. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. In respect of this chargesheet also an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty.

(3.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service on 15-9-1995. The respondent company filed Approval Application No. 51 of 1995 on 20-11-1998 before the Central Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal found that both the enquiries were not fair and proper and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly was pleased to deny approval to the action of the respondent company in dismissing the petitioner from service. The respondent company then filed Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2547 of 1998 which came to be dismissed by order dated 24-2-2000. The Respondent then preferred an appeal which came to be disposed of by a consent order of 18-4-2000. The orders of the Industrial Tribunal and of this Court were set aside by consent, as in the meantime a substantive Industrial dispute vide Reference No. CGIT 41 of 1999 was pending on the subject of reinstatement of the respondent. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court along with interest thereon without any security. The tribunal was directed to hear and dispose of the reference within six months from the date of hearing. Statement made on behalf of the respondent company was accepted that the respondent company would not rely upon the enquiry proceedings and would prove the charges against the respondent by leading fresh evidence before the tribunal which alone the tribunal shall take into consideration which shall consider both documentary and oral evidence. It was made clear that the petitioner would also be entitled to lead evidence if he desires to defend the charges against him. There were further directions issued in the matter of refund of amount directed to be paid to the petitioner.