Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's dismissal order but modified the penalty to termination of service, considering the employee's past good record.

Summary

Shiva Anand, a master technician with Indian Airlines for 27 years, produced a forged employer's certificate to obtain an Australian visa. Disciplinary proceedings led to a charge-sheet, an enquiry report recommending dismissal, and a final dismissal order, which he appealed. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, but the Division Bench reversed that decision, upholding dismissal. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the Division Bench's finding that Anand's conduct warranted dismissal, yet, considering his long, exemplary service, modified the penalty from dismissal to termination of service to enable future employment. The Court also ordered the release of Rs.1,00,000 deposited in the Court to defray his expenses. The appeal was thus disposed of with the modified termination order.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal order for producing a fake certificate can be set aside.
Whether the penalty of dismissal can be modified to termination of service in view of the employee's long and exemplary service record.
Whether the Division Bench's order upholding dismissal is liable to be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Subjects

service lawterminationdismissaldisciplinary proceedingsforged documentvisa fraudemployee misconductpenalty modification

Judgment

A SHIVA ANAND -( ~

v.
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. & ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

+.
Service Law-Termination-Disciplinary proceedings- ....,,
.

Employee producing fake document for obtaining visa-Dismissal-
c Single Judge of High Court quashed the order, directing his
reinstatement-Division Bench ofHigh Court upholding the order of
dismissal-On appeal, held: In the facts ofthe case employee has been
rightly punished-However, punishment of dismissal altered to
termination in view of his past good career record and high
D qualification.

Appellant, an employee of respondent Airlines was charged for ,k
having produced a fake certificate from the respondent, for the purpose
of getting a visa. Enquiry Officer gave his report recommending his
E dismissal from service. He was punished accordingly by the authority.
After some litigation between the parties, appellant filed a departmental
appeal against the order of dismissal which was rejected. Appellant
challenged both the orders in Writ Petition. Single Judge ofHighCourt
quashed the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement. In writ
F appeal, Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of dismissal.
Hence the present appeal.
~
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The order of the Division Bench cannot be interfered
G with 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. [Para 4) [366-F]

2. The proposal of the appellant in the alternative was that in view
H 364
SHIV A ANAND v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 365
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
'r
of his uniformally good career for 27 years with the Indian Airlines and A
his expertise as a highly qualified master technician in Aircraf~
Engineering the order of dismissal be modified to one oftermination of
service so as to enable him to seek employment in some othe~
organization. The proposal was accepted by the respondent Accordingly
the penalty ofdismissal modified to termination of service. It was further B
directed that the sum ofRs.1,00,000/-which has been deposited in this
~
Court shall be paid to the appellant to defray his expenses.
r [Para 5) [366-G, H; 367-A, B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4842 of
2007. c
From the Judgment and final Order dated 10.04.2007 of the High,
Court of Calcutta in A.P.O. No. 240 of2003 in A.P.O.T. No. 632 of
2002 in G.A. No. 3469 of2002 in W.P. No. 663 of2000.
K.V. Vishwanathan,.Suman Jyoti Khaitan and P.S. Sudheer for the D
__... Appellant.
L.N. Rao, Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Akanksha, Neha Sharma,
Swigin and Bina Gupta for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
F
the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd August
2002 which in tum had quashed the order of dismissal from service made
against the appellant herein and ct,irecting his reinstatement with 50% back
wages. In the light of what has beE;p stated by the learned counsel for the
parties, we find that a detailed discussion on the matters in controversy
G
would perhaps not be necessary. The bare facts accordingly are being
•referred to .
.-1·
3. Shiva Anand, appellant herein, was an employee of the Indian
Airlines and posted at Calcutta Airport. In August 1998 he applied for a
H
~.
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

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's certificate allegedly signed by
B Shri S.K. Basu, Senior Chief Manager of the Indian Airlines certifying
that he had been granted privilege leave from Septemberl, 1998 to
October 30, 1998. It appears that in order to verify the correctness of
the certificate t}1e Australian High Commission got in touch with the Indian
Airlines on which it was revealed that no such certificate had been issued
C 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
D 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.
E 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
circumstances that the present appeal has been filed by Shiva Anand.
F
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
G VlSa.

5. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for ~e 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
H Airlines and his expertise as a highly qualified master technician in Aircraft
Engineering had been fully recognized and as the order of dismissal had
SHIVA ANAND v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 367
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
foreclosed all chances of future employment it was perhaps appropriate A
that the order of dismissal be modified to one of termination of service
so as to enable him to seek employment in some oth~r 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 B
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.
c
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.