INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. CAPTAIN DHIRESH PRASAD SHAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in a writ petition (C. W. J. C. No. 1275/81) wherein the petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 9th September, 1980 (being Annexure 18) passed by the Board of Directors, Indian Airlines, New Delhi, dismissing the statutory appeal of the petitioner and the order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 4th July, 1973, as a Captain in the Indion Airlines, which was passed by appellant No. 1 Chairman of the Indian Airlines (respondent No. 1) in the writ petition), as communicated to the respondent-petitioner by letter dated 4th July, 1973 (Annexure 15), for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents in the writ petition to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant of other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The facts of this case, as far as they are relevaState of Madhya Pradesh v. Chitaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 16,Kamta Pandey v State of Bihar, AIR 1970 Patna 23,1959 and he was promoted as First Officer. In the year 1962 he was promoted as Captain in the Indian Airlines. There were some alleged incidents in respect of certain Indian Airlines flights of 24-11-1972 and 25-11-1972 in respect of which the petitioner was the Captain in command of the plan. The petitioner was called upon to submit his comments in respect of certain complaints made regarding the same to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter a charg-sheet was served on the petitioner which states as follows :

(3.) The petitioner filed his written reply one Mr. G. S. Dhillon was appointed as Enquirying officer after the transfer of Mr. Dhillon. The hearing took place on 6th and 7th of March, 1973 wherein various persons were examined by the Presenting officer. The petitioner did not produce any witness, but submitted his written defence. Thereafter the Enquiring officer submitted his report wherein he found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The relevant portion of the finding is set out hereinbelow: