http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4842 of 2007

PETITIONER: Shiva Anand

RESPONDENT: Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 14352/2007)

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

  1.   Leave granted.

  2.   This appeal by special leave is directed against  the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High  Court whereby it has set aside the judgment and order of  the learned Single Judge  dated 2nd August 2002 which in  turn had quashed the order of dismissal from service made  against the appellant herein and directing  his  reinstatement with 50% back wages.  In the light of what  has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties, we  find that a detailed discussion on the matters in  controversy would perhaps not be necessary.  The bare facts  accordingly are being referred to.                                        3.      Shiva Anand, appellant herein, was an employee of the  Indian Airlines and posted at Calcutta Airport.  In August  1998 he applied for a concessional air ticket for a visit  to Delhi and then proceeded to Delhi on 22nd August 1998.   On the 28th August 1998 he visited the Australian High  Commission in New Delhi and applied for a visa for entry  into Australia.  On September 2, 1998 he again visited the  Australian High Commission and submitted an employer\022s  certificate allegedly signed by Shri S.K. Basu, Senior  Chief Manager of the Indian Airlines certifying that he had  been granted privilege leave from September 1, 1998 to  October 30, 1998.  It appears that in order to verify the  correctness of the certificate the Australian High  Commission got in touch with the Indian Airlines on which  it was revealed that no such certificate had been issued by  Shri S.K. Basu.  Disciplinary proceedings were accordingly  initiated against the appellant for having produced a fake  certificate in the name of Shri S.K.Basu and a charge-sheet  dated 28th October 1998 was issued to him.  After a detailed  enquiry which the appellant repeatedly tried to obstruct,  the enquiry officer tendered his report recommending that  he be dismissed from service on which the punishing  authority passed a final order to that effect.  After some  litigation between the parties which even brought the  parties to this Court, the appellant filed a departmental  appeal against the order of dismissal from service.   The appeal too was rejected by order dated 18th January  2001.  Both the orders were impugned before the learned  Single Judge and were quashed leading to the filing of the  appeal before the Division Bench which reversed the same  and upheld the order of dismissal.  It is in these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

circumstances that the present appeal has been filed by  Shiva Anand. 4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  length.  We are not inclined to interfere with the order of  the Division Bench in the light of the issues that have  been raised and the conduct of the appellant in attempting  to produce a fake document along with his application for a  visa.   5.      Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the  appellant submitted in the alternative that but for one  aberration i.e. the present one, the appellant had a  uniformally  good career for 27 years with the Indian  Airlines and his expertise as a highly qualified master  technician in Aircraft Engineering had been fully  recognized and as the order of dismissal had foreclosed all  chances of future employment it was perhaps appropriate  that the order of dismissal be modified to one of  termination of service so as to enable him to seek  employment in some other organization.  Mr. Rao, the  learned senior counsel for the respondent, Indian Airlines  had sought time to take instructions, and has thereafter  informed us that the Indian Airlines were inclined to  accept the proposal so as to make the appellant eligible  for future employment.  We accordingly modify the penalty  of dismissal to termination of service.  We further direct  that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been deposited in  this Court shall be paid to the appellant to defray his  expenses. 6.      The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.