Dismissed

Mrs.Sangeetha Sharma v. Chairman and Managing Director

Madras HC11 Sept 2014WP/12654/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madras High Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the Managing Director was the competent authority to consider her review petition. The court held that under the applicable Standing Orders and Schedule I, the Headquarters Department Head (Executive Director) was the requisite authority, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit review application to the Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi. Writ Petition dismissed.

Mrs.Sangeetha Sharma Vs Chairman and Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.09.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.12654 of 2014

¶6

Mrs.Sangeetha Sharma .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.Managing Director, Air India Corporation, National Aviation Company of India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110001. 2.Capt S.velraj, Dty.General Manager – (OPS) IFS, Integrated Service Complex, Operations Building, Air India, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600027 ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to immediately receive and forward to the first respondent the review petition dated 17.3.2014 filed by the petitioner to the first respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to hear and dispose of the same. [Amended as per order of this Court dated 10.6.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.12654 of 2014]

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s.Shubharanjani Ananth For respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.K.Srinivasamoorthy

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 26.8.2009 for unauthorised absent and only enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry that charge was proved and she was imposed with punishment of "reduction in time scale by three incremental stages with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1st June, 2010, as contemplated in Paragraph 17 (f) of the Standing Orders (Regulations) Concerning Discipline and Appeals, by the Deputy General Manager (IFS), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai, the second respondent herein who is the Regional

¶12

Departmental Head as per Schedule I of the said standing orders. The petitioner filed appeal against the punishment to the appellate authority, who is the Executive Director Southern Region I, whose earlier designation was Regional Director (Southern Region) Concerning Discipline and Appeals. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by letter dated 5.7.2012. Therefore, she filed a revision and according to the petitioner, her review application, has to be considered by the first respondent and the same has to be forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent and no other authority has got power to consider her review application.

¶13

The respondent/management filed a counter stating that the review authority as per Paragraph 37 of the Regulations and Schedule I to the Standing Orders (Regulations) Concerning Discipline and Appeals of the respondent company is the Executive Director (Customer Service), who is Headquarters Department Head, and therefore, the review will have to be considered only by him and not by the first respondent / Managing Director and therefore, the review application sent by the petitioner sought to be considered by the first respondent / Managing Director was returned and she was directed to file a review petition to the Executive Director (SR – I) if so she desires. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Grade 9 employee and the punishment was imposed by the Dy.General Manager (IFS), AIL,Chennai and the punishment was as per Paragraph 17(f) of the Standing Orders (Regulations) concerning Discipline and Appeals and as per Schedule I. In respect of class of employees 7, 8 and 9 and in respect of punishment as per Paragraph 17(b) to (f), the competent authority is the Regional Departmental Head and the appellate authority is the Regional Director and against the order of the appellate authority, the higher authority is the Headquarters Department Head, and therefore, the review can be considered only by the Executive Director (Customer Service), Headquarters Head, and not by the first respondent.

¶14

Mr.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the organisational set up and as per the regulations, the review has to be heard only by the superior authority than the authority which entertained the appeal and as per the re-designation of the existing Directors as per the proceedings dated 13.4.2006, the Regional Director (North/East/West/South) is re-designated as Executive Director (Nothern Region / Eastern Region / Western Region and Southern Region and whereas disciplinary authority is also Executive Director and all of them carry the same scale of pay and the punishment imposed was confirmed by the appellate authority, namely, Regional Director, and the Executive Director to whom, the review is sought to be sent, is of the same rank of the appellate authority and therefore, the review has to be considered by the higher authority, namely, the Chairman and Managing Director and therefore, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

On the other hand, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per organisational set up against the order of the Regional Director, review has to be filed before the Headquarters Department Head and as per the organisational set up, Regional Headquarters Departmental Head is the Executive Director (Customer Service) Headquarters, New Delhi. Therefore, the review has to be addressed only to that authority and it will not lie to the Chairman.

¶17

According to me, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated in Paragraph No.9 as follows:

¶18

"Admittedly in the case of the petitioner, punishment contemplated under Paragraph 17 (f) was imposed by the Dy.General Manager (IFS), being the Regional Departmental Head and her appeal was rejected by the Executive Director – SR (I) being the Regional Director. Therefore, the petitioner can prefer a Review Petition to the Executive Director (Customer Service), Head Quarters, New Delhi as she is the Departmental Head at the Head Quarters Level and the authority higher to the Executive Director – SR (I) (Appellate Authority). I submit that the Executive Director, Southern Region (formerly known as Regional Director) under the Standing Orders and the Head Quarters Departmental Head is immediately higher and therefore, the Review will lie to him. In this case, it is the Executive Director (Customer Service), Head Quarters, New Delhi is the Head Quarters Department Head."

¶19

Further, as per Schedule – I, against the order of Regional Director, higher authority is the Head Quarters Departmental Head, as specified in column 4 of Schedule, and he may review a case at any stage either on his motion or on an application of the employee concerned on the ground of material irregularity whereas punishment awarded is in any manner within his competence. It is also seen from Schedule I that against the orders of Regional Director, Higher authority to be approached is the Head Quarters Department Head and according to the respondent, Head Quarters Department Head has been reclassified as Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi, and therefore, the review has to be filed before him.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Prakash, relying upon the Notification dated 13.4.2006 which deals with re-designation of existing Directors, submitted that, the Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi cannot be the reviewing authority and therefore, the review has to be considered only by the Managing Director. According to me, the argument cannot be accepted. As per Schedule – I, the Regional Head Quarters Department Head is the superior officer than the Regional Director, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and admittedly, the appeal was considered by the Regional Director

¶21

and therefore, the Headquarters Department Head is the competent authority and it has been reclassified as Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi, and therefore, the review has to be submitted only to him and the Managing Director / first respondent is not the competent authority to consider the review application. Further, when the management has come forward with the explanation that the reviewing authority is the Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi, that has to be accepted and it is also in consonance with Schedule – I to the regulations.

¶22

There is no merit in the Writ Petition and the petitioner is directed to submit her review application to the Executive Director (Customer Service) Head Quarters, New Delhi, if she so desires.

¶23

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 17.09.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Managing Director, Air India Corporation, National Aviation Company of India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110001.

¶25

2.Capt S.velraj, Dty.General Manager – (OPS) IFS, Integrated Service Complex, Operations Building, Air India, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

¶26

+1 cc to M/s.Shubharajan Ananth,Advocate,SR.43351 +1 cc to Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,Advocate,SR.43297. ksj(co) krd 17/9

¶27

Order in W.P.No.12654 of 2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.Sangeetha Sharma v. Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Sangeetha Sharma v. Chairman and Managing Director

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. C.Thirunavukarasu, Vs Periyar University

S.Murugesan, Vs The District Collector

J.Ramesh, S/o.M.Jayaseelan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

D.Prasad, Driver Vs the General Manager

T.D.Arumugam Vs Dr.R.Ilangovan

B.Kannagi, Vs The Secretary to Govt.