BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC Vs. BARUNENDRA NATH BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by Sri Alok Das, judge, 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 705/2001 whereby the learned judge had passed an ex parte ad-interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent who has filed a suit against the defendant appellant for declaration and permanent injunction and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent was working as Senior Reservation Assistant, Customer Service now attached to the Calcutta Office under the defendant/appellant. The defendant/appellant had framed a charge of insubordination against the plaintiff/respondent and accordingly, he was suspended from service although, according to the plaintiff/respondent, he was innocent and victimized of the circumstances. An order of suspension was passed against the plaintiff/respondent. By a letter dated 13th July,1998,the plaintiff/respondent was asked to appear before an Enquiry Officer. The plaintiff/respondent submitted a written explanation against the impugned charges denying his guilt. According to him, the proceedings started against him were not in accordance with law and natural justice was denied to him by reasons of not supplying the copy of the report, if any, along with the chargesheet issued to him by the appellant. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter made several applications on different diverse dates before the Enquiry Officer for production of witnesses, documents and lawyers' assistance, by the applications, according to the plaintiff, were rejected by the Enquiry Officer in a mala fide manner. The Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry has already submitted his report and the charge contained in the chargesheet against the plaintiff/respondent was found against the plaintiff/respondent. A show cause notice was issued by the higher authority of the defendant/appellant as to why the plaintiff/respondent should not be dismissed from his service. The plaintiff/respondent filed an application before the defendant/appellant praying for time to submit a written explanation against the proposed order of dismissal from service. Upon the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff/respondent filed the instant suit for declaration that the impugned chargesheet along with the order of suspension dated 15th June, 1998 and the enquiry proceedings and the report of the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of such report, the proposed order of dismissal of the plaintiff/respondent from service are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant and its officer from giving any further effect to the impugned chargesheet along with the order of suspension dated 15th June, 1998 and also from giving effect to the order of proposed punishment passed in the month of May, 2001 and or not to impose any penalty till the disposal of the suit and for other incidental reliefs. In connection with the instant suit, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant/appellant from giving any effect to the proposed letter of punishment dated 15th May, 2001 till the injunction application is disposed of. As noted herein earlier, by an exparte order dated 30th May, 2001 the learned judge passed an ex parte ad-interim order of injunction restraining the appellant from giving effect to the proposed letter of punishment dated 15th May, 2001 till the disposal of the injunction application. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the defendant/appellant has come up to this Court in appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. We have perused the application for injunction and the plaintiff as well as the order which is now under challenge before us in appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their respective submissions particularly the reliefs claimed in the suit by the plaintiff/respondent, prima facie we are of the view that the relief claimed in the plaint cannot be granted to the plaintiff/respondent and, therefore, the question of granting ex parte ad-interim order of injunction could not arise at all.