1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2281 OF 1999 R. Vijaykumar ...Petitioner v/s Air India Ltd. ...Respondents Mr B.V. Bukhari for Petitioner. Mr S.K. Talsania, Sr Counsel with Mr Abhay Kulkarni for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the show cause notice dated 31st August 1999 issued by the Director, Inflight Service of the respondents. The facts that are relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner is in service of the respondents as a Senior Check Flight Purser. On 29th December 1998, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner levelling a charge that he submitted a false Caste Certificate for getting appointment in the services of the respondents. The charge-sheet was signed by the General Manager, Inflight Service. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the petitioner is not found guilty of the charge levelled against him. The enquiry report was considered by the appointing authority viz. General Manager, Coordination and he made an order on 21st May 1999. The General Manager concurred with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the 3 petitioner is not guilty of the charge levelled against him. Really speaking, that should have been end of the matter, however, it was not. The Director, Inflight Service took upon himself the responsibility of revising that order. The Director, on 31st August 1999 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not disagree with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also rescind the order of the appointing authority concurring with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the show cause notice approached this Court The principal challenge to the show cause notice is that the Director, Inflight Service who had issued the show cause notice, has in law no authority to do so. The respondents on being served, have filed affidavit in reply, but they have not pointed out any authority under which the Director, Inflight Service has issued show cause notice though specific ground is raised in the petition. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted 4 that in terms of sub-clause (28) of Article 124 of Articles of Association of the Company, there has been delegation of power and the power of imposing punishment on the officers of the cadre of the petitioner is vested in both the General Manager and the Director. In the submission of the learned counsel therefore, the Director, Inflight Service has the power to rescind the order of the General Manager. 2] We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. We find that even accepting the case of the respondents, though it is not pleaded, that the Director and General manager both concurrently hold the power to punish the petitioner, in our opinion, once that power is exercised by the General Manager, there remains no power in balance which can be exercised by the Director. In other words, once the power is exercised by the General Manager, that power get exhausted and therefore, it cannot be exercised by the Director again. The Director could have issued the show cause notice only if power was 5 conferred on him to set aside or revise or modify the order passed by the General Manager. No such provision is pointed out to us. We find that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 31st August 1999 is patently without any authority in law and therefore is liable to be set aside. In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )