INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION Vs. SUKDEO RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second by the defendant Indian Airlines Corporation arises out of a suit brought by one of their dismissed employees for a declaration that the order of dismissal was invalid, void and ineffective and that his services under the defendant should be deemed to be still subsisting. The plaintiff succeeded in both courts below. The facts material fort the purpose of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) The plaintiff was appointed originally by the Airways (India) Limited as a motor driver on permanent basis at Calcutta in 1951 and worked as such until sometime in August, 1953 when the undertakings of certain existing Air Companies including the Airways (India) Limited were taken over by the defendant Corpn. The said Corporation was brought into existence by the Air Corporations Act, 1953, referred to hereinafter as the Act, to provide for the establishment of Air Corporations, to facilitate the acquisition by the Air Corporation of undertakings belonging to certain existing Air Companies and generally to make further and better provisions for the operation of air transport services. Under the provisions of the Act, on the vesting of the Airways (India) Ltd. in Indian Airlines the plaintiff became an employee of the defendant Corporation. On January 13, 1956 the plaintiff was suspended on charges of dishonesty and unauthorized use of Corporation's vehicle. An enquiry committee was constituted to investigate into the charges against him. The Committee examined several witnesses and found the plaintiff guilty and recommended his dismissal from service. Accepting the recommendations, the Deputy Area Manager dismissed the plaintiff from service by an order dated February 6, 1956. The plaintiff thereafter instituted the suit out of with the present appeal arises.

(3.) Plaintiff's case was that the departmental proceeding against him had been conducted in complete disregard of the regulations or standing orders made under Section 45 of the Act laying down the disciplinary procedure. According to the plaintiff the charge-sheet against him was issued and the enquiry held by persons who had no authority to do any of these things under the said regulations and, further, that he was denied the opportunity to which he was entitled under the regulations to cross-examine some of the witnesses appearing against him in the enquiry. The power of the Deputy Area Manager to dismiss the plaintiff was however admitted. The Court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's contentions and gave him a decree declaring that his services were still subsisting with right to all emoluments and that the order of dismissal passed against him was invalid, void and ineffective. This decree was affirmed by the Court of appeal below: