Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labour and Industrial - termination - Articles 226, 311 and 311 (2) of
Constitution of India, Regulations 42 to 44, 44 (10), 46, 46 (3), 47, 48, 49
and 49-A of Air India Employees' Services Regulations - petitioner charged of
misconduct - he was terminated from services without holding any enquiry
and recording any reason - Order of termination challenged on ground of
violation of Regulation 48 - Regulation 48 requires that employee can be
terminated on holding enquiry and recording good reason in writing -
termination simpliciter is legal and cannot be vitiated merely because
misconduct spur it - inadvisability of holding enquiry for any good reason
cannot make exercise of such power malafide - requirement to prove
existence of good reason in Court is sufficient safeguard against abuse of
power - in present case non disclosure of reasons in termination Order was to
protect reputation of corporation and employees as well - respondent
disclosed good reason when validity of Order was challenged - held, no
violation of Regulation 48 and termination Order valid.
JUDGMENT
Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande, C.J.
1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the two petitioners, seeks
to get the order of termination of their services dated 29th April, 1981 under Regulation
48 of Air India Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Regulations") quashed. Petitioner No. 1 was the Director of Engineering and the head of
the Engineering Department while petitioner No. 2 was Deputy Director of Engineering
(Maintenance) and the head of the Maintenance Division in the service of respondent
No. 2, Air India Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") on the date of
the impugned orders. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the said post on 5th February,
1980 and was confirmed therein on 1st March, 1981. On the date of the impugned
orders, petitioner No. 1 was aged 55 years while petitioner No. 2 57 years, their dates
of birth being 7th November, 1925 and 24th April, 1924 respectively.
2 . The petitioners were responsible for the maintenance of the aircrafts owned by the
Corporation. Boeing 707 aircraft (hereinafter referred to as 'Makalu") had returned from
Abu Dhabi to Bombay on 15th April, 1981. Makalu was earmarked for a special VVIP