Back
Bombay High Court
(DECEMBER 17, 2004)
PREM KUMAR UPADHYAY
Versus
AIR INDIA LTD.
Departmental proceedings. - Acquittal of delinquent-employee of criminal charges on account of benefit of doubt, not precludes management to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings. - It is open to the Management in the case where the delinquent employee is acquitted of criminal charges on account of benefit of doubt and or for want of evidence to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings. The well-settled legal principle in a domestic enquiry is that the enquiry officer is not bound by the rules of evidence. What must be complied with is fair play and principles of natural justice. In the instant case the petitioner was not honourably acquitted but was given benefit of doubt. Therefore it was open to the Tribunal to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct. The objection therefore, as raised by the petitioner on that count must be rejected.
Employment misconduct. - Any offence connected with business or working of establishment can be treated as an employment misconduct. - The petitioner had access to the Airport as employee of Air India Limited. He is connivance with one Mishra attempted to smuggle out Mr. B from International Airport. It is true that every offence, unconnected with the business and or working of the establishment cannot be treated as a misconduct if not enumerated. However, if the offence is in connection with the use of the establishment of the employee for the offence and that offence is by misusing the premises of the establishment of the employers, then it can be a misconduct in the matter of breach of law applicable to establishment or commission of an act subversion of discipline. There can be no difficulty therefore, in holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges as levelled. The Tribunal has on consideration of the material arrived at the finding of fact. The finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse now the award on that count be liable to be set aside on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice and fair play or of the Standing Orders.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and upheld the findings of the Tribunal, emphasizing that it cannot re-appreciate evidence if the Tribunal's findings are not perverse (!) (!) .
The Court acknowledged that an acquittal in criminal proceedings due to benefit of doubt does not preclude the management from initiating or continuing disciplinary proceedings, provided the enquiry was fair and followed principles of natural justice and fair play (!) .
The misconduct of the employee included misuse of the employer’s premises and breach of discipline, which can be considered employment misconduct if connected with the business or working of the establishment (!) .
The facts of the case included allegations of passing on a staff concession ticket, unauthorized travel, and connivance in forgery and fraud, which were substantiated through documentary and oral evidence, and the findings of fact were upheld as not perverse (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that findings of fact by the Tribunal, based on appreciation of evidence, are not subject to re-evaluation in writ proceedings unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence (!) .
The Court highlighted that non-production of certain documents or failure to produce original tickets does not necessarily prejudice the case if the evidence on record sufficiently establishes misconduct (!) .
The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that reappraisal of evidence by the Court is not permissible unless the findings are manifestly unreasonable or perverse (!) (!) .
The Court addressed that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct established and that the Tribunal’s decision not to interfere with the punishment was justified considering the gravity of the misconduct and the employee’s past record (!) .
The Court emphasized that the scope of judicial review in such cases is limited to examining whether the principles of natural justice were followed and whether the findings are perverse or based on no evidence, rather than re-assessing factual evidence (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the disciplinary action and the subsequent order of dismissal, as the findings were supported by evidence and the punishment was proportionate (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
F. I. REBELLO, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 15-5-1990. In the charge sheet it was alleged that the petitioner being a staff member applied for and was authorised a staff concessional air passage bombay/delhi/bombay against which he was issued on 15-1-1988 a ticket No. 098-403062 against payment of Rs. 356/ -. It was then alleged that the petitioner passed on the said ticket to one Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate, who has approached him to obtain for himself a full fare ticket of Rs. 2170/- which was to be defrayed from the several loans advanced to him by Mohan Lal earlier. The said Mohan lai was not happy to receive a staff concessional passage ticket issued to the petitioner in lieu of the desired full fare ticket. Said Mr. Mohanlal reported the matter to the respondent company whereupon the petitioner paid Mr. Mohan Lal the sum of Rs. 1850/- leaving a balance of Rs. 320/- to be paid, and collected the said ticket back. It was then alleged that on further investigation into by the Vigilance division, it was revealed that one ticket No. 098-395414 issued in favour of the petitioner was utilized for travel on the sector Bombay/delhi by flight AI-306 on 6-11-1987 arriving at Delhi at 18. 15 hrs. The leave record of the petitioner indicated that petitioner was on a days sick leave on 6-11-1987 and his attendance card was showing that he was on duty at Bombay between 6. 24 am and 13. 28 hrs on 7-11-1987. On interrogation by the vigilance officer, petitioner contended that he had used his international ticket for travel Delhi/bombay but was unable to produce the jacket of the relevant ticket. There were only two flights namely AI-108 and AI-888 departing Delhi after the arrival of Flight AI-306 at Delhi on 6-11-1987 and reaching Bombay before 06. 00 hrs. on 7-11-1987. Verifications of the flight coupons of these two flights revealed that no flight coupon pertaining to petitioner was uplifted on these flights. It was therefore, concluded that the petitioners ticket bearing No. 098-395414 was allowed to be used by someone else for travel Bombay/delhi on Flight No. AI-306 of 6-11-1987. It was therefore, set out that the acts on the part of the petitioner constitute misconduct under Air India Employees Service Regulations as also Air India passage Regulations. The petitioner was therefore, charged for the following misconducts : 1) Failure to maintain absolute integrity and conducting yourself in a manner not conducive to the best interests, credit and prestige of the corporation. 2) Fraud in connection with the business of the Corporation. 3) Breach of rules, regulations and orders applicable to the establishment. 4) Commission of acts subversive of discipline. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation with reference to the above charges within seven days from the receipt of the same. An enquiry was conducted in which petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled. ( 2 ) A second chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner dated 17-12-1992. It was set out therein that the petitioner had at about 0100 hrs. on 11 november, 1992 approached the Check-in-counters operated for flight DL-107/11/11/92 with a Delta Airline ticket No. 20011496374-0062111308271 and indian passport K-362513 issued at Bombay on 6-1-1991 and presented petitioners travel documents for check-in at Bombay airport. The petitioner had no check-in baggage and was carrying only a hand baggage. As per the practice mr. J. Vallodo security agent of Delta Airline examined the travel documents of the petitioner and questioned him regarding purpose of his visit to New York without check baggage and reason for buying a full fare ticket when he was entitled for free/concessional/gratis tickets, being an employee of Air India. The petitioner informed him that he had exhausted his passages and he was proceeding to New York to attend to urgent work. Since the explanation offered by him was not convincing the matter was refer
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
