Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Lyme George - Petitioner
Vs.
The General Manager, Personnel Air India Limited and Ors. – Respondents
WP.No.30376 OF 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 11.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.Vijaya Narayanan, SC for Mr.Parthiban
For Respondent: Mr.NGR.Prasad, SC
The importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing sufficient opportunity to the concerned party before imposing disciplinary action.
Headnote:
Air India Employees Service Regulations - Disciplinary Action - 2012 5 SCC 242 - The court set aside the impugned order on the ground of not giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Respondents for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an Air Hostess, was subjected to disciplinary action for accepting ownership of a bag containing catering items supplied by Taj Flight Kitchen, which was found in the crew shuttle transport. The impugned order imposing punishment was challenged in the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order on the ground of not giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Respondents for fresh consideration.
Issues: Violation of Air India Employees Service Regulations, sufficiency of notice, and principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to present her case before imposing punishment.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Respondents for fresh consideration, with directions to give the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to put forth her case and proceed further in accordance with the law.
In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 30.07.2015, imposing punishment.
2. The Petitioner joined in the Respondent Company as an Air Hostess on 8.1.1990 and she worked as a Cabin Crew for more than 20 years and she is presently working as Assistant Manager (IFS). She was the Chief Cabin Crew In-charge of the Flight AI-907/908 on 1/2.07.2015. A search on the crew baggage, while the transport carrying crew members arrived at the entrance of the Integrated Security Complex, was conducted on 2.7.2015. It was found by the Security Department that there was an unclaimed green zipper bag containing items in the crew shuttle transport and the catering items supplied by Taj Flight Kitchen for AI 907/AI 908 of 2nd July 2015 were found in the said bag. Then, all the crew members of AI 908 were called for investigation on 6.7.2015 and all of them stated that the green zipper bag did not belong to them. Later, on further enquiry, the Petitioner accepted the ownership of the said bag. After investigation, a report dated 13.7.2015 was submitted by the Investigating Officer and based on the said report, disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioner. After issuing the show cause notice dated 29.07.2015 through email to the Petitioner, the impugned order dated 30.7.2015 has been passed, imposing punishments in three folds, namely, (1) severe warning, (2) the Petitioner would not be rostered for any international night stops involving payment of foreign allowance and (3) the Petitioner will not permitted to exercise the privileges of “Cabin Crew In charge with effect from 1.8.2015 until further notice. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is in total violation of the Air India Employees Service Regulations and there was no sufficient notice given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order of punishment, inasmuch the notice is dated 29.7.2015 and the impugned order is dated 30.7.2015 and that the Petitioner ought to have been given sufficient opportunity to submit her explanation and prayed for quashing of the impugned order. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the Respondent cannot ignore the statutory rules and they are bound to adhere to the Air India Employees Service Regulations strictly. The case reported in 2012 5 SCC 242 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of UP and others) is also cited.
3. The Respondents filed a counter affidavit, contending that the CCTV Video clippings revealed that the green zipper bag was handled by the Petitioner on the date of the incident and on seeing the video clips only, the Petitioner accepted the ownership of the bag and that based on the statement of the Petitioner sent through email and the investigation report dated 13.7.2015, disciplinary action was initiated and the impugned order has been passed, imposing punishment, pending the disciplinary proceedings, which warrants no inteference.
4. This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is not in dispute that on the search made on the crew baggage on 2.7.2015, the catering items supplied by Taj Flight Kitchen for AI 907/AI 908 of 2nd July 2015 were found in the green zipper bag and that though in the enquiry conducted on 6.7.2015, all of them stated that the green zipper bag did not belong to them, later the Petitioner accepted the ownership of the bag. But, according to the Petitioner, the offence alleged was not admitted.
6. Further, it is the specific case of the Petitioner that she was on flight duty till 30.07.2015 and hence, she could not see the show cause notice dated 29.07.2015 sent through email and there was no sufficient opportunity was given to substantiate her case, before passing the impugned order on 30.07.2015.
7. As stated by the Petitioner, it is seen from the r
