IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2017 OF 2008 Ahmed Hussain ...Petitioner V/s. M/s.Saudi Arabia Airlines & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Chaturvedi i/b Mr.S.C.Chaturvedi & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.P.I.Paulose with Mr.R.J.Cama for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Athawale i/b Mr.M.R.Prajapati for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 15, 2008. DECEMBER 15, 2008. DECEMBER 15, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two contentions have been raised before this Court. The first argument is that the Respondents in the Departmental enquiry, neither examined the complainant nor any Officer who had personal knowledge about the incident. The : 2 : argument though attractive is devoid of any merits. The argument clearly overlooks that the Petitioner himself has admitted his guilt during the course of enquiry. That fact has been recorded at more than one place in the departmental enquiry report which was read out to me by the Counsel for the Respondents, copy whereof is not annexed to the Petition. Once the guilt is admitted by the Petitioner, the requirement of proving the facts or the charges against the Petitioner in the said enquiry do not arise. The matter ought to proceed on the basis of the said admission itself. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the admission was taken under force and duress. It is not possible to accept this argument. The fact remains that the matter has to proceed on the basis of admission given during the enquiry. In any case, the Department proved the charge by producing legal evidence. That has been additionally relied to establish the charge. That evidence has been properly appreciated. 3. Viewed in that perspective, no other issue would arise for consideration with regard to the : 3 : legality and propriety of the departmental enquiry. 4. The second contention raised before this Court is that the punishment is disproportionate to the charge for which the Petitioner was tried. It is contended that the allegation was of taking Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) from passenger for giving priority in allotting seat in the aircraft. Even this argument will have to be stated to be rejected. The charge is not simplicitor of only being benefitted by accepting Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) as such, but is concerning management and security arrangement of the Respondent Company and more particularly, the passengers and property of the company and its customers. Thus understood, even the second argument does not commend to me. 5. Accordingly, this Petition fails. The same is rejected. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.