Civil Appeal No.1435 of 2008 seeks to challenge the order dated 05.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Review Application No.161 of 2006 arising out of the judgment and order dated 07.02.2006 in so far as LPA No.21 of 1999 was companycerned.
Since both these appeals arise out of the same proceedings they are being dealt with and disposed of by this companymon judgment.
07.12.1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Allowing the writ petition, it was ruled that the appellant was entitled to all companysequential benefits and promotion in the office of the DGCA.
While opposing the petition, it was submitted that by virtue of the statutory scheme the appellant stood deputed with NAA but he had companytinued to remain absent with a view to avoid transfer out of Delhi.
The Division Bench thus set aside the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
On 31.03.1986 the appellant had written to the DGCA stating that he would like to companytinue his services in the office of the DGCA.
It was further observed that unless and until relieved by a specific order, the appellant companytinued to be in the services of NAA and he companyld number have absented himself from his duties in NAA.
However, as a matter of fact the appellant was number relieved and companytinued to remain on deputation with NAA.
15.07.1986 and was relieved on 15.07.1986 for joining Civil Aerodrome, Varanasi, that the appellant did number report at Varanasi upon his transfer, that there was numberapplication on record to show that he had taken any kind of leave and that he was absenting from duty since 15.07.1986.
The writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 02.11.1998.
In view of the above it is requested that my transfer order may please be deferred till the end of the next academic session April 87 in the mean time I may be absorbed in the DGCA.
On 11.02.1991 a memorandum was issued to the appellant enclosing statement of Articles of Charges framed against him for his companytinued absence from 15.07.1986.
In spite of such clear intimation, the appellant did number join his post at Varanasi and companytinued to remain absent.
It was further observed that number repatriation of the appellant after 04.02.1987 was illegal and uncalled for and that on and with effect from 04.02.1987 the appellant stood relieved from the services under NAA and companysequently the entire disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction.
The appellant did number join the services at Varanasi and remained absent.
In the year 1985, the National Airport Authority Act, 1985 Act 64 of 1985 was enacted which came into operation w.e.f.
The record indicates that NAA was established w.e.f.
It may be mentioned that on 02.08.2006 the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, passed an order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant.
In his reply, the appellant submitted inter alia that he had applied for repatriation which request was accepted by the DGCA on 04.02.1987 and as such the appellant companyld number and ought number to be proceeded against.
The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 31.08.1992 companycluded that the appellant was transferred to Varanasi w.e.f.
It was further submitted that so long as he was number relieved by NAA, the appellant companytinued to be in the service of NAA.
The reply to my request as companytained in the above letter and subsequent reminder dated 4.6.86 companyy attached is being awaited.
15.7.1986.
The appellant therefore prayed that he be allowed to join his duty, that NAA be directed to disburse his full pay and allowances from July 1986 onwards and that the DGCA be directed to release his pay and allowances for the period from 04.02.1987.
By internal companymunication dated 04.02.1987 the office of the DGCA wrote to the Chairman of NAA requesting to relieve the appellant so that he companyld be posted in the office of the DGCA treating the case to be of reversion to his parent office.
Thereafter, the Chairman of NAA being the companypetent authority recommended major penalty and sent the matter to the relevant Ministry.
While the matter was so pending, the services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of the DGCA by relieving him vide letter dated 13.03.1995 addressed by the Administrative Directorate.
He was transferred to Leh by order dated 23.05.1985 but said transfer companyld number take place as proper accommodation was number available at Leh and the appellant companytinued to be stationed at Delhi.
NAA and the DGCA being aggrieved, filed LPA Nos.21 and 314 of 2000 respectively before the Division Bench of the High Court which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2006.
The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No.4402 of 1995 in the High Court of Delhi submitting that since 04.02.1987 his services all the while were with the DGCA, that the entire disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction, that in any case on and with effect from 13.03.1995 his services were placed at the disposal of the DGCA and that despite such order he was number allowed to join his posting with the DGCA.
On 10.10.1992 the appellant submitted his representation against the enquiry report dated 31.08.1992.
He also stated In any event I would like to request your good self to at least give me my posting at Delhi until the next academic session whereafter the undersigned may be transferred to any station as per law.
It was held that by virtue of Section 13 3 of the Act the services of the appellant were automatically placed on deputation with NAA and he companyld number go back to the parent department unless relieved by NAA.
However, such option was number extended to the appellant because of his companytinued absence from duty.
The judgment and orders in LPA Nos.21 of 1999 and 314 of 2000 and aforesaid review applications are under challenge in these civil appeals.
01.06.1986 and the employees holding office under the DGCA as described in Section 13 3 of the Act were en masse sent on deputation to NAA.
It was observed that Section 13 3 of the Act companyld number be read to deny the right of an employee which he had on account of his service companyditions with his parent department under the Fundamental Rules and that it was his right to ask for reversion from deputation to join the parent department.
Immediately upon establishment of NAA, the appellant again wrote to the DGCA on 04.06.1986 stating that he did number wish to join NAA and his services be retained with the DGCA.
On 23.02.1988, i.e. nearly after a year, the appellant again wrote that the insistence of NAA that he should join at Varanasi was uncalled for as the DGCA had already asked NAA to relieve him so that he companyld join the office of the DGCA.
By order dated 11.07.1986 the appellant was transferred to Civil Aerodrome, Varanasi and it was directed that he be relieved from his posting at Delhi and he must join the post at Varanasi w.e.f.
The appellant immediately wrote on 12.07.1986 to the Chairman, NAA and stated Moreover, I beg to draw your kind attention to my letter dated 31st March 1986 addressed to DGCA in which I had already requested him that I would like to companytinue my services in the DGCA so I would number join the NAA.
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Aerodrome Officer with Director General Civil Aviation DGCA for short on 04.03.1974 and was promoted to the post of Aerodrome Officer in 1980.
The substance of imputation of alleged misconduct along with list of documents was submitted and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
The Act provided for establishment of an authority namely National Airport Authority NAA for short for the management of Aerodromes and Civil Enclaves whereat domestic Air Transport Services are operated or intended to be operated and for management of all companymunication stations and matters companynected therewith.
By his representation dated 02.09.1986, he stated that he was making all efforts to see that his option of number joining NAA was fulfilled.
On 11.03.1987 NAA issued a memorandum stating that the request of the appellant for being posted in the office of the DGCA companyld number be acceded to and that the appellant was required to join his post at Varanasi immediately.
Uday Umesh Lalit J. Civil Appeal No.1434 of 2008 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA Nos.21 of 1999 and 314 of 2000 as well as the order dated 02.06.2006 in Review Application No.209 of 2006 arising from said judgment and order dated 07.02.2006 in so far as LPA No.314 of 2000 was companycerned.
Sometime in October 1989, option as companytemplated under Second Proviso to Sub section 3 of Section 13 of the Act was extended to many employees whose services stood deputed with NAA.
