SHRIKANT R PALKAR Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference No. CGIT-2/31 of 1992 wherein the Presiding Officer dismissed the reference and held that the order of termination of the petitioner herein was just, proper and legal. Brief facts are as under :-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 as a Loader and thereafter, he was confirmed in the said post. It is alleged that on 14.6.1985 while he was on duty, one Mrs. Devaiah was going to Bangalore by flight IC 107, was holding Lufthansa tickets and she reported at the Chennai counter. It was found that she had eight pieces of baggage weighing 190 kgs. She made a request that she was traveling with three small children the said weight may be reduced and accordingly, Mr. Creado, Traffic Assistant on duty, reduced the baggage weight by 10 kg. He, however, asked her to pay excess baggage charges for Rs. 100 kgs. It is the case of the respondent that while she was going to pay the excess baggage charges, the petitioner approached her and demanded Rs. 400/- in consideration of allowing her to carry the excess baggage without payment of the excess baggage charges. Mrs. Devaiah had paid the said amount of Rs. 400/-. At the relevant time, Mr. M.R. Dalvi, Security Assistant was on duty and he saw the petitioner accepting something from the passenger and he informed Mr. A. Prasad, Deputy Commercial Manager. A search was conducted and the amount of Rs. 400/- was found from the petitioner's pocket. According to the respondent, the petitioner accepted that he had received the said amount from Mrs. Devaiah in consideration of allowing her to carry her baggage without payment of excess baggage charges. In view of this incident, on the very next day on 15th June, 1985, the petitioner was suspended due to the alleged misconduct. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under the Standing Order (Regulations) for the said misconduct. The petitioner submitted written statement on 25th July, 1985. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his report dated 4th March, 1986 in which he held that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established by the company. A show cause notice was issued asking the petitioner why his services should not be terminated. The explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted and he was removed from service on 30th May, 1986. The petitioner filed four appeals dated 24.6.86, 10.3.87, 6.3.91 and 29.1.92. The said four appeals were not entertained and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court. Before the Industrial Court, the petitioner filed the statement of claim, list of documents. The respondents filed their affi-davit-in-reply in respect of statement of claim. Award-I was passed by the Industrial Court n 9th July, 2006 in which it was held that the enquiry which was held was proper, legal and valid and thereafter, Part II award was passed on 6.12.1996 in which it was held that the order of dismissal was just, proper and legal.

(3.) Mrs. Meena Doshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Enquiry Officer had not appreciated evidence on record in its proper perspective. She submitted that Mrs. Devaiah was not examined by the respondents and letter written by her was brought on record. She submitted that there was no evidence to show that the amount which was given by Mrs. Devaiah was towards a bribe for non payment of the excess baggaging charges. She submitted that in fact, the said amount was not paid by her since she was not in a position to pay the said excess baggage charges herself since she was accompanied by her three small children and there was huge rush on the counter where payment was being paid. She submitted, therefore, that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner had accepted the bribe was perverse. She submitted that so far as the confessional statement which was given by the petitioner to the officers of the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the said statement was given under duress and under undue influence since he was told that if he did not give the said statement, he would be handed over to the police Secondly, it was submitted that the said order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges which were levelled against him. Thirdly, she submitted that in several other cases, the respondent had reinstated employees and the charges against the said employees were dropped. She invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents wherein the list of cases where the employees were exonerated had been mentioned in the affidavit in-reply. She submitted that therefore, it was a clear case of distinction between the petitioner and the other employees who were similarly situated.