AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the disciplinary authority at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition dated 18th April, 2008, whereby, the disciplinary authority has imposed upon the petitioner a penalty of censure.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that on more than one occasion, the inquiry has been conducted and on both the occasions, the charge, levelled against the petitioner, has not been proved, as per the reports given by the Inquiry Officer on two occasions. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charge levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that the petitioner has submitted an inflated T.A./D.A. Bill for staying at Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal. This charge was denied by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and inquiry was conducted, wherein, by way of Ext. 7, the amount, which was actually paid by the petitioner at Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal, was presented before the Inquiry Officer. This bill clearly reveals the name of Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal. After recording the evidences of both the sides, the Inquiry Officer gave report dated 15th June, 2005 that the charges, levelled against the petitioner, are not proved. This inquiry report was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 7th November, 2005 passed an order that he is not agreeing with the report, given by the Inquiry Officer, and the matter was remanded for a fresh inquiry.

(3.) It is submitted, at this stage, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that neither a copy of the inquiry report dated 15th June, 2005 was ever given to the petitioner nor the disciplinary authority i.e. the Executive Director (P & A), Airport Authority of India, New Delhi, while passing the order dated 7th November, 2005 (Annexure 4 to the memo of petition) has ever given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thus, the report of the Inquiry Officer, which is in favour of the petitioner, was quashed and set aside exparte by the disciplinary authority and, as such, this action of the disciplinary authority is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, hence, the order, passed by the disciplinary authority dated 7th November, 2005 (Annexure 4 to the memo of petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thereafter, once again the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and again the petitioner presented the same document (Ext.7), which reveals the payment made by the petitioner to Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal, while the petitioner stayed at that hotel. The respondents could not prove the charge against the petitioner and again the Inquiry Officer, who has conducted a fresh inquiry, has come to a conclusion that the charge, levelled against the petitioner, is not proved and the second time report given by the Inquiry Officer is dated 5th January, 2006, which is at Annexure 6/1 to the memo of petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority again did not agree with the said second inquiry report and issued a show cause notice dated 21st February, 2006 to the petitioner that why a punishment be not imposed upon him, by an order at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition and, thereafter, an order of punishment was issued by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18th April, 2006 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition), whereby, it has been held that "In any case, the facts and circumstances of the case do not support his total exoneration" and though there is no conclusive evidence, on the basis of probability, the disciplinary authority wanted to impose a minor penalty upon the petitioner and, therefore, a penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is working as Senior Superintendent (Air Traffic Controller), Airports Authority of India, with the respondents and has not committed any misconduct, whatsoever, and has served sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents since 28th August, 1995. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority is on the basis of "No evidence" and though there is no evidence against the petitioner, penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. On the contrary, there is evidence in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner has presented the payment receipt of Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal and the respondents are consistently saying that the petitioner has not made any payment to Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal, and has wrongly collected a sizable amount from the Airport Authority. This charge is not proved by the respondents, during course of both the inquiries and without any basis and without any evidence, a conclusion has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with even second inquiry report and, therefore, the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority dated 18th April, 2006, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that against the order dated 18th April, 2006, passed by the disciplinary authority, a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the appellate authority has also passed an order dated 20th October, 2006, which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of petition. The appellate authority has also not properly appreciated the fact that the respondents have failed to prove the charge and on the basis of "No evidence" the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment upon the petitioner and the bill regarding payment to Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal, which has been presented by the petitioner, has not at all been considered, whereas some copy of a register of Hotel Nirmala, which has never been proved by the respondents, has been relied upon. The document presented by the respondents does not clearly state that whether this document is from Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal, or not. Nobody is proving that the said document was collected from Hotel Nirmala. The officer, who has signed that document, which has been presented by the respondents, was never examined as a witness. Thus, the source of the document, which has been presented by the respondents, is not proved nor the person, who has signed the said document, has proved the contents of the document. Nobody knows from where this document has been collected by the respondents whereas the petitioner has presented the payment receipt of Hotel Nirmala, situated at Imphal. The document presented by the petitioner clearly reveals the name of the said hostel. It also reveals the number of days during which the petitioner had stayed in the said hotel. It also clearly reveals how much amount was paid by the petitioner. Thus, explicitly clear document has been ignored by the respondents deliberately and absolutely an ambiguous document has been heavily relied upon by the disciplinary authority and, even the whole case is based upon "No evidence", then also, for the sake of imposing punishment, a punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner and, therefore, the order, passed by the appellate authority at Annexure 9 to the memo of petition dated 20th October, 2006 also deserved to be quashed and set aside.