Airports Authority Of India vs M.A. Khan
2006 Latest Caselaw 382 Del

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.1.2004.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) was an officer in the service of the appellant. He was served with a memorandum dated 18.11.1998 containing the articles of charge of misconduct against it, copy of which is annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The said charge reads as follows:-

That Shri. M.A.Khan, while working as General Manager (Commercial) in Commercial Department, International Airports Authority of India (IAAI) Hqrs., New Delhi did not propose about the chargeability of license fee and about the delegation of powers at the time of issuing formal letter dated 16.03.92 permitting temporary access to M/s Indian Hotels Corporation Ltd. (I.H.C.L.) through I.A.A.I. land at Sahar Airport, Bombay. Thus by the aforesaid acts of omission and commission you acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the International Airports Authority of India and therefore you are liable for misconduct under Clause 5 read with Clause 26 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1987 and amendments made thereafter.

4. The statement of imputation of misconduct which was also sent Along with memorandum was as follows:-

That Shri M.A.Khan while working as General Manager (Commercial) in Commercial Department in International Airports Authority of India (IAA) at Hqrs., New Delhi in March, 1992 agreed with the views of Shri V.K.Mathur, the then Chairman of IAAI for allowing access on temporary basis to M/s Indian Hotels Corporation Ltd. (I.H.C.L.) through IAAI land at Sahar Airport, Bombay without imposing any license fee and without approval of the Comptent Authority i.e., I.A.A.I.Board.

That the said Shri M.A.Khan, agreeing with the above decision of the Chairman with the approval of Shri Robey Lal, Member (Engg.) conveyed vide letter dated 16.03.92 to M/s I.H.C.L the pemission to use I.A.A.I. land as access on temporary basis for construction purposes.

That the said Shri M.A.Khan being head of the Commercial Department failed to apprise the Chairman about the financial implications at the time of allowing access to M/s I.H.C.L. without levying any license fees. Moreover, he failed to propose about the chargeability of license fee.

That the said Shri M.A.Khan, did not suggest to seek approval of I.A.A.I.Board for confirmation of the decision of the Chairman in regard to allowing access to M/S I.H.C.L. without levying license fee. Moreover, at later stage on 14.02.94 Shri Inderjit Singh, the then General Manager (Land Management) suggested for seeking approval of he Board and the I.A.A.I.Board in its 109th meeting decided to impose license fee @ 5 times than the normal rate applicable at the airport to be charged from M/s I.H.C.L.

By the aforesaid acts of omission and commission the said Shri M.A.Khan, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the International Airports Authority of India and thus he is liable for misconduct upper Clause 5 read with Clause 26 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1987 and amendments made thereafter.

5. By letter dated 17.12.1999 the petitioner was informed that Shri Sarvesh Kumar has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer. True copy of letter dated 17.12.1999 is annexure P.3. It is alleged in para 8 of the writ petition that although an Inquiry Officer was appointed in December, 1999 but no inquiry proceeding took place for three years. Hence, it is alleged that the inquiry is a grossly belated since the incident in question occurred above 10 years back.

6. The prayer in the writ petition was, therefore, to quash the memo of charge-sheet dated 18.11.1998.

7. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent and we have perused the same.

8. In paragraph 3 of the same, it is stated that M/s Indian Hotels Company Ltd. wanted access through the land of the Airports Authority of India. The proposal of giving access to the land of the Airports Authority was discussed with the CMD of the Taj Group and at various levels of the Airports Authority and was finally approved by the Member (Engineering) and Chairman, and the said decision was conveyed by the petitioner by his letter dated 16.3.1992 to the Taj Group. In this letter dated 16.3.1992 the petitioner did not mention anything about charging the license fee from Indian Hotels Company Ltd. for use of the appellant's property. Moreover, under the rules the International Airports Authority of India Board was the competent authority to allot the land of the Airports Authority of India and the petitioner failed to put up the matter for the board's approval. The petitioner as such failed to protect the interest of the authority and caused undue favor to a private party, viz, the Taj Group.

9. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the matter was investigated by the CBI and hence the appellant was awaiting the result of the investigation. In fact, the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 5.4.2002 had advised the appellant to appoint another Inquiry Officer and ultimately the CVC nominated Sh. M.K.Ghosh to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and this appointment was made by an order dated 29.7.2002. Hence, it is denied that there was any delay in conducting the inquiry attributable to the appellant as the matter was being investigated by the anti-corruption unit of the CBI. By letter dated 12.10.1998, the Ministry of Civil Aviation advised the appellant to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and immediately after that the action was taken by issuance of charge-sheet dated 18.11.1998. It is alleged that the delay in appointment of the inquiry officer or presenting officer and the commencement of inquiry proceedings was due to procedural formalities which were required to be completed in consultation with the CBI and CVC. It is alleged that the charges leveled against the petitioner are based on documentary evidence and the petitioner will be given full opportunity to go through these documents. Hence, it is alleged that there is no question of loss of vital evidence because of the delay in the inquiry.

10. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the matter was investigated by the anti-corruption unit of CBI and after thorough examination it has recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The CBI is a statutory investigation agency and the Airports Authority had no role to play during the investigation. It is denied that the charge-sheet has been issued to victimize the petitioner or that it is violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution. The delay was only because the matter was being investigated by the anti-corruption unit of the CBI.

11. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment has allowed the petition and quashed the charge-sheet dated 18.11.1998. With respect we cannot agree with the view he has taken.

12. We have held in our decision, MCD v. R.V.Bansal in LPA 505/2004 decided today, that in cases when there are grave charges of financial irregularities neither the charge-sheet nor the inquiry should be quashed on the ground of delay. We have discussed the entire case law on the point in the aforesaid decision, and hence we are not repeating the same. We have held in the aforesaid decision that in case where there are charges of financial irregularities etc. it usually takes a long time to collect the evidence, and very often the misconduct comes to light several years after the said irregularities. Hence in such cases a charge sheet not be quashed on the ground of delay.

13. In the present case, the delay was only because the matter was being investigated by the CBI, and hence the Airports Authority had to await the result of that investigation.

14. In our opinion, the charge-sheet should not have been quashed. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.