Shambhu Mishra vs Airport Authority Of India Ltd. & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 4330 Del

.*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                       W.P (C) No. 5574 of 2008

Shambhu Mishra                                    ......Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. K. C. Mittal, Adv. with
                                Mr. Rahul Goyal, Adv.

                       Versus

Airport Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.         ....Respondents
                       Through: Mr. M.S. Nidhi Manocha, Adv. for
                                 R-1

                       Judgment pronounced on: 15.09.2010

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a

writ for setting aside the following:

            (i)     Order of review dated 04.07.2007

            (ii)    The order of appeal dated 16.06.2005 and

(iii) The order of the disciplinary authority dated 06.04.2004 ordering the termination of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that since 1986 the petitioner had

been working for respondent No. 1 the Airport Authority of

India at the post of beldar and by the order dated 17.05.1996

he was regularized by the management of the respondent No. 1

as he was one of the employees covered by the judgment dated

06.09.1990 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Writ Petition No. 1174 directing the Airport authority of India

to fill up the vacancies on regular basis.

3. As per the petitioner at the time of the preparation of the

seniority list he submitted his documents along with school

leaving certificate, of class VII of a school in Bihar for his age

proof. On 12.04.1999 a charge sheet was issued against the

petitioner but, according to him it was based on a false

complaint made by a person named Umakant Jha, who is

neither known to him nor an employee of the respondent No.

1, alleging that the school leaving certificate furnished by the

petitioner is wrong. After the issuance of the said chargesheet

the petitioner filed his reply in which he stated that he never

studied in Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior Secondary

School Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar instead he studied in

Adarsh Prasad Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar

and his date of birth is 29.04.1965.

4. The inquiry was conducted in the matter and the Enquiry

Officer concleded as under :

"...FINDNGS:-

I am left with no other option and came to conclude that the wrong information about his age and of his wife on the respective dates in March 96, May 96, Aug 96 further prove the charges leveled against DE. It is further established from the documents produced before

me that DE got admission in the Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Sr. Sec. School, Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar for higher studies and thus has acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Authority and by submitting wrong/false information has failed to maintain absolute integrity.

Thus from the above charges no. 2 & 3 leveled against the DE stands proved...."

5. The IGI Airport sought information from both schools and the

principal of Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior Secondary

School Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar issued a certificate dated

20.07.1998 stating that the date of birth of Sh. Shambhu

Mishra is 05.12.1956. Later on the same school issued another

certificate dated 15.05.1999 stating that the certificate issued

on 20.07.1998 pertained to Shambhu Nath Mishra and not to

Shambhu Mishra the petitioner in the present case. According

to the petitioner the principal of Adarsh Prasad Secondary

School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar issued certificate dated

20.11.1998 certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner is

29.04.1965.

6. The inquiry officer relied upon the first certificate dated

20.07.1998 issued by Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior

Secondary School Kadirabsd, Darbhanga, Bihar and discarded

the certificate dated 20.11.1998 issued by Adarsh Prasad

Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar. The

Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 07.03.2001 ordered

the termination of the petitioner.

7. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner

in appeal and the Appellate Authority sent the matter back for

holding de-nevo enquiry as it was observed that the inquiry

proceedings held against the petitioner were not proper and

also quashed the order of termination placing the petitioner in

suspension. However, instead of holding the de-nevo enquiry,

the Disciplinary Authority insisted that the petitioner should

undergo a medical test but the petitioner submitted that his

medical test has already been done and in the health certificate

dated 27.05.1996 the age of the petitioner is given to be 32

years. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 06.04.2004

terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed

an appeal dated 26.04.2004 against the order of the said

Disciplinary Authority which was rejected by the Appellate

Authority by order dated 16.05.2005. The petitioner then filed

a review petition dated 07.09.2005.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it

has been stated that the Sub-Committee of Board of Airport

Authority reviewed the entire case taking into consideration

all the submissions of the petitioners made in the review

petition dated 07.09.2005 but rejected it in view of the non-

cooperative attitude and disobedience of the petitioner.

9. The respondent did not consider the certificate dated

20.11.1998 issued by Adarsh Prasad Secondary School

Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar which was in possession of the

respondent. The submission of the respondent has no force

when it is stated that the petitioner did not join the enquiry

proceeding, therefore, this court may not interfere with the

order passed as the petitioner ought to go for medical

examination in order to get an idea of his age. Actually, the

said medical examination was to be conducted for the purpose

of getting the idea of petitioner's approximate age. On the

other hand, the school certificate furnished by the petitioner

clearly indicates the date of birth of the petitioner. Once the

cogent evidence was available with the respondent wherein

the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned and validity of

certificate had been certified by the school in question, thus

the termination of the petitioner on this reason was illegal and

against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry

proceedings are set aside.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is allowed.

The order dated 16th June, 2005 is set-aside. Therefore, the

appeal becomes infructuous. The petitioner is entitled for the

relief of reinstatement in service as he was on the date of

termination of his services with the respondent within a period

of two months.

11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

12. No costs.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 dp