K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is working with the first respondent. He applied for loan under the Indian Airlines Housing Loan Regulation. On the 25th of March, 1996, a charge-sheet was issued on the ground that the petitioner had violated the terms of the loan granted to him, and therefore, he is guilty of misconduct.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the main ground that the charges levelled against him do not come within the purview of the misconduct and, therefore, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the charge-sheet. The first respondent has filed the counter-affidavit and stated that it is within the power of the Indian Airlines to take action against the employee if he or she commits breach of the terms of the loan sanctioned under the provisions of the Indian Airlines Staff Housing Loan Regulations.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Jain, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in "a. L. Kalra Vs. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. ", AIR 1984 SC 1361. According to the learned counsel, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in this case would govern the ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document