Form No. J(2)

Item No. DL / 14 RKD – A.R.(CT)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

(Appellate Side)

BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA

W.P.A. NO 4253 OF 2025

Syed Firdaus Ali

-Vs-

AI Airport Services Limited (formerly known as Air India Air Transport

Services Limited) & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee,

Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi

For the respondent : Mr. Dipankar Das

Heard On : 10.12.2025 Judgment On : 10.12.2025

SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1. In terms of the order dated 1^st December, 2025 a report in the form of

affidavit affirmed on 8^th December, 2025 by the General Manager, Ground Handling, Eastern Region, AI Airports Services Limited is filed

today and same is taken on record.

2. Petitioner was recruited as Customer Agent vide letter dated 27^th November, 2012 issued by the Manager (C-Admin) of Air India Air Transport Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as “said organization”). Subsequently, petitioner was appointed as Junior Officer-Customer Service vide letter dated 11^th November, 2023.

3. In the writ petition, inter alia, order of termination dated 6^th January, 2025 issued by the Manager-HR of said organization is questioned.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Chatteerjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner that impugned termination letter dated 6^th January, 2025 was issued without following due process of law and principle of natural justice was not complied with in drawing up proceeding against the petitioner.

5. It is also submitted since petitioner was terminated on the ground of misconduct and serious lapse this impugned termination shall operate as future disqualification in getting employment in other organization.

6. It is contended that after issuance of show-cause notice dated 2^nd December, 2024 no charge-sheet was issued and relevant materials relied upon in the proceeding were not supplied to the petitioner thereby he was prejudiced in defending his case before the concerned respondent authorities.

7. There is a specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was afforded to him to respond to the enquiry report dated

19^th December, 2024 albeit said enquiry report was not prepared pursuant to any charge-sheet but show-cause notice dated 2^nd December, 2024.

8. Said organization is represented by Mr. Das, learned advocate who has made submissions to defend the steps taken by the concerned respondent authorities while terminating the petitioner vide letter dated

6^th January, 2025.

9. Notice of this Court has also been drawn to Clause 12.3 of Contract Engagement document relating to Senior Customer Service Executive dated 5^th June, 2023 wherein it is provided that employment can be terminated without any cause by the company giving the said employee three months’ notice in writing or gross emolument/compensation in lieu of notice period.

10. Based on said Clause 12.3 it is submitted on behalf of the said organization that as the engagement of the petitioner was contractual, said authority is not required to take all necessary steps for compliance of natural justice while terminating the petitioner.

11. However, in consideration of the materials available on record and submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, Court finds that while terminating the petitioner vide order dated 6^th January, 2025 aforesaid Clause 12.3 was not applied.

12. If steps was taken in terms of Clause 12.3 in that event it would have been termination simplicitor without attaching stigma. But here in the instant case petitioner was terminated on the ground of misconduct and serious lapse which will operate as future disqualification in getting employment in other organizations requiring compliance of principle of natural justice.

13. While scrutinising steps taken by the respondent authorities in drawing up proceeding against the petitioner it is found that entire action rests on show-cause notice dated 2^nd December, 2024 and there is no issuance of formal charge-sheet.

14. Moreove