Y. K. Sabharwal, J. - (1.) The appellant, a corporal in Indan Air Force was removed from service in exercise of powers under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 by order dated 30th June, 1998. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. The appellant is in appeal on grant of leave.
(2.) The facts in brief are that in March, 1994 snags were noticed in 14 aircrafts, as a result, the aircrafts could not be used for flying for two days. The appellant was charged for causing damage to the said training aircrafts. The appellant belongs to electric trade. In substance, the allegations, insofar as the appellant is concerned, were that he had damaged the electric system by breaking wires as a result whereof the aircrafts could not be used for flying.
(3.) The findings recorded in the Court of inquiry were that number of wires were found broken on 25th and 26th March, 1994; the breakages appeared to be fresh and found to be the result of deliberate action on the part of some individual; the appellant had worked on all the 14 aircrafts on 24th and 25th March, 1994 and was held responsible for breaking the aircrafts wires thereby rendering various aircrafts system non-functional. In the opinion of the Court of inquiry, the appellant was directly responsible for these acts of sabotage. As a result of the aforesaid enquiry, a notice dated 4th July, 1994 was issued to the appellant to show cause why he may not be dismissed from service. The validity of the said notice was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition. By order dated 28th November, 1994, noticing that the appellant had not been supplied enquiry officers report before issue of the notice dated 4th July, 1994 and the same was supplied on 13th September, 1994 subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the notice dated 4th July, 1994 was set aside. Issues were kept open enabling the appellant to file appropriate reply to the enquiry report and directing that on such reply, it would be open to the respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It appears that on the recommendations of the Court of inquiry, a notice dated 24th February, 1995 was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant was granted 10 days time to reply to the notice dated 24th February, 1995. By order dated 3rd May, 1995, noticing that the appellant had failed to file reply even after lapse of a considerable time, the appellant was informed that he had been dismissed from service on 1st May, 1995. This resulted in appellant filing before the High Court another writ petition (WP No. 4905/95) challenging the dismissal order. The main argument urged before the High Court was that the appellant was entitled to show cause notice at two stages; the first when the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, the appellant should have been issued a show cause notice to explain why the report of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and the other on receipt of the explanation, if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that innocence of the employee is inconsistent with the report of the Enquiry Officer, proposing the nature of penalty. The High Court noticing that admittedly no show cause notice had been issued to the appellant to explain why the Enquiry Officers report should not be accepted, held the dismissal order dated 3rd May, 1995 to be illegal, in terms of judgment dated 10th April, 1996. The order of the learned single Judge was, however, set aside in an intra-Court appeal and the writ petition remitted for fresh decision. Writ Petition No. 4905/95 was finally disposed of by learned single Judge in terms of the judgment and order dated 28th October, 1996. It was noticed in the judgment that a second enquiry had been held in respect of the same incident to find out whether other persons were also involved in doing damage to the aircrafts wherein appellant was again examined. The contention urged was that if the two enquiry reports are read together, it would be seen that both pertain to same incident pointing out that in first enquiry appellant ws held guilty and in the second other persons were found to be involved but were left with a reprimand. The contention urged was that failure to take into account both the reports had caused prejudice to the appellant. While setting aside the dismissal order dated 3rdMay, 1995, learned single Judge permitted the appellant to furnish his explanation to the show cause notice. The respondents were directed to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard and pass a fresh order on consideration of the appellants representation.;