[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2004 NO. 157 OF 2004 NO. 157 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2003 Mr. Pradeep Prabhu ... Appellant. Vs. Air India & another. ... Respondents. Mr. Ashok Shetty with Ms. Mira Iyer for the appellant. Mr. S.U.Talsania i/b. M.V. Bini & Co. for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : March 3, 2009. : March 3, 2009. : March 3, 2009. P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 27th November, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1971 of 2003. That writ petition was filed by the appellant. The appellant challenged the award made by [2] the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Mumbai in Reference No. CJIT 1/1999. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was in the employment of Air India Ltd. as a cleaner and was working in the Ramp division of ground services. On 25.6.1986 charge sheet was issued against the appellant. Misconduct alleged against appellant was that on 13 May, 1986 he drove Transporter No. 3224, approaching Bay No. 49 unauthorisedly. When he reached the Aerobridge structure of Bay No. 49, he lost control of the vehicle and dashed it against the aerobridge structure of Bay No. 49 causing damage to the aerobridge structure. 3. In the Departmental enquiry he was found guilty and punishment of removal was imposed. The reference Court after appreciating the material on record held that the enquiry held against the appellant was fair and the principals of natural justice were followed. It also held that the misconduct alleged against the appellant was proved. It also held that punishment of removal cannot be said to be excessive and, therefore, the reference Court dismissed the reference. [3] 4. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the material on record dismissed the petition. The larned Counsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that the enquiry should have been held as per the Model Standing Order and not according to the service regulations and, therefore, according to him as the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the Service Rregulations, the enquiry is defective. In our opinion there is no substance in this submission. So far as the misconduct is concerned, the misconduct alleged against the appellant is that he unauthorizedly drove the transporter vehicle. This misconduct is admitted by the appellant. He admitted that he had no authority to drive the Transporter vehicle. In our opinion, therefore, as the misconduct is admitted, even if the defence of the workmen that because the Superintendent asked him to do it he did it is taken to have been proved in our opinion still it would amount to misconduct as he was not authorised to drive the vehicle. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant then submitted that punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh. Industrial Court as also the learned Single Judge have considered these aspects of the matter and have held that in view of the admitted and proved misconduct and that it was committed in a sensitive [4] area like airport, the punishment cannot be termed as excessive or harsh. 6. We do not find any patent illegality in the order. The appeal has no substance. The appeal is dismissed. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]