Dismissed

Kishor Jayrampant Dhoke v. Air-India Air Transport Services Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2016WP/1730/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order and seeking reinstatement. The Court found no direction from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to cancel the transfer and held the petition infructuous due to prior disciplinary termination.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the services of the petitioner had already been terminated following disciplinary action.

Kishor Jayrampant Dhoke Vs Air-India Air Transport Services Ltd… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 1730-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1730 OF 2015

¶5

Kishor Jayrampant Dhoke … Petitioner Vs.

¶6

AIR India AIR Transport Services & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

None for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Lancy D'Souza a/w Deepika Agarwal i/b V. M. Parkar, for the Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

¶12

PC.

¶13

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Even on the earlier dates, neither Petitioner nor his counsel remained present when the matter was called out.

¶14

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶15

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to comply the direction / instruction dt. 26.05.2015 of the Respondent No. 2 and to cancel the transfer order dt. 06.01.2015 of

1 / 3

WP. 1730-15

the Petitioner.

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to comply the direction / instruction dt. 26.05.2015 of the Respondent No. 2 and to allow the Petitioner to join duty at Mumbai Airport.

¶20

¶21

(d) Any other appropriate relief.”

¶22

The brief facts are that the Petitioner was working with the Respondent Air-India Air-Transport Services Limited, Mumbai at International Airport. The Petitioner was then transferred to Amritsar vide order dated 6^th January, 2015 on promotion. The Petitioner, however, did not report on duty at Amritsar, but made a representation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. His representation was considered by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and directed the Chairman and Managing Director (Respondent No. 2) to consider his application for withdrawing the order of transfer.

¶23

Pursuant to the said direction given by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Respondent No. 2 considered his application.

¶24

2 / 3

¶25

WP. 1730-15

¶26

However, he was pleased to reject his representation.

¶27

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had directed the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the said order of transfer. In our view, there is no substance in the said allegation made in the petition. Perusal of the order passed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation will clearly demonstrate that the Ministry had only asked the CMD Air India to consider his representation. This cannot be interpreted to mean that a direction was given to cancel the order of transfer. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the Petitioner in this petition.

¶28

We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that a disciplinary action has already been taken against the Petitioner for not reporting to the work, and after issuing showcause notice, his services have already been terminated. The petition has even otherwise become infructuous. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶29

Sd/Sd/[Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶30

Vinayak Halemath

¶31

3 / 3

Kishor Jayrampant Dhoke v. Air-India Air Transport Services Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Jayrampant Dhoke v. Air-India Air Transport Services Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Kirit Somaiya Vs the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and 12 Ors.

Mr. Johnny Ishwardas Kirpalani and 6 Ors. Vs Union of India and 17 Ors.

Marathe Textiles Mills, Miraj Thru. Proprietor Balwant Textiles Mills Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Arun Madhavrao Powar Vs Sou. Suvarna Arun Pawar

Shri. Arun Madhavrao Powar Vs Sou. Suvarna Arun Pawar

Shri. Yogesh Sambhajirao Khaire and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary