IMPORTANT POINT
Scope and ambit of the expression “Misconduct” in service jurisprudence discussed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 24.6.1992 by which he was compulsorily retired in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’) and Rule 15 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 (in short the ‘Rules’).

3.Averments in the writ petition were to the following effect:

Appellant was granted commission in Air Force on 14.7.1973. After obtaining service in October, 1985, he got engaged with daughter of one Mulkh Rajh Kakkar, a contractor undertaking contracts from respondents only. The marriage was performed on 14.1.1986. His father in law thereafter expected the appellant to help him in procuring other Government contracts particularly from Air Force and when the appellant refused to help him, the problem started. The marriage was not working out smoothly and ultimately in 1988, his father in law lodged a complaint in this respect with his employer. But by communication dated 8.12.1988 his employer refused to take congnizance of the matter on the ground that it was a personal dispute for which no departmental action could have been initiated. He was called upon to report to respondent No.3 at New Delhi on 19.6.1990 and when he accordingly reported, he was kept in confinement and on 25.6.1990 a document already written was got signed from him and said document was purported to be terms of settlement of dispute between the appellant and his wife. The appellant was not even permitted to consult an advocate nor was he allowed to leave the room. The appellant was thereunder informed that Court of Enquiry would be held against him at Air Force Station, New Delhi, in February, 1991 and actually the terms of reference or any show cause notice in this regard was not communicated to him. As many as 27 witnesses were examined by both parties in these proceedings which were spread over for a period of five months and ultimately the Court of Enquiry submitted a report almost exonerating him on all counts. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 19.2.1992 was issued by respondent No. 3 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. The appellant had not received necessary documents and even he was not given inspection and hence the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. By an order passed on 12.3.1992, writ petition was dismissed by this Division Bench of the High Court observing that the appellant was at liberty to file appropriate representation before the authorities to highlight all his grievances-factual, legal and constitutional. Thereafter terms of reference dated 5.2.1991 were received by him and he also got copy of findings of Court of Enquiry dated 16.6.1991. Thereafter on 30.3.1992, he submitted his reply to show cause notice pointing out that there was no misconduct warranting any action from respondents and the failure to submit the property returns within time was not a misconduct serious enough to warrant such grave punishment. An additional reply to show cause notice was filed on 22.6.1992. On 24.6.1992, the order which was impugned before the High Court came to be passed and as already mentioned above, he was compulsorily retired.

Challenging the order of compulsory retirement the writ petition was filed. It was his stand that the court of enquiry has exonerated him on all counts except late filing of property returns. According to the appellant same was not of serious nature which would warrant compulsory retirement. The stand of the respondent before the High Court was that the transactions were between 1981 to 1986 and the return was belatedly filed after about six years on 23.3.1992 therefore the conduct was most unbecoming of an officer of the Air Force. Therefore the order of compulsory retirement was legal and val