“Punishment Is Just and Reasonable”: Madras High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Airport Security Officer for Lapse Leading to Smuggling Attempt
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani dismissed a writ petition challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a security officer by a public sector airline, confirming the Industrial Tribunal’s award. The Court held that the disciplinary action taken for a serious breach of airport security was proportionate and lawful. It ruled that the petitioner’s dismissal did not warrant judicial interference, as the enquiry was found to be fair and the punishment rationally balanced the nature of misconduct and the employee’s service record.
The petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent airline in 1983 as a Security Guard and rose to the post of Assistant Officer (Security) by 1999. He served for two decades without adverse remarks. On 12 December 2001, a show-cause notice was issued to him under the Certified Standing Orders following a customs seizure of 440 star tortoises from a passenger at Chennai airport on a flight bound for Singapore (SQ-409). The incident raised suspicion that the petitioner, who was on duty, may have facilitated clearance of the contraband through the x-ray baggage screening system.
Despite the petitioner’s denial, a domestic enquiry was initiated. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. A copy of the report was shared, and after receiving his explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 25 March 2003 dismissing the petitioner from service.
Due to pending disputes concerning airline employees’ service conditions, the matter was subjected to an approval petition before the Industrial Tribunal. Following the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 17 April 2007, the tribunal disposed of the approval petition and allowed the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
An industrial dispute was raised and taken up in ID No. 22 of 2008 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. No oral evidence was led, but the petitioner marked 54 exhibits, while the management filed 34 exhibits. The Tribunal held that the enquiry had been conducted fairly and that the findings were supported by material on record. It confirmed the punishment imposed by the management and dismissed the dispute. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking reinstatement with full service benefits.
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds. He argued that the chain of events surrounding the contraband seizure was not coherently established and that his presence at the screening location was not directly linked to the smuggling. He contended that other personnel who operated the x-ray machine were not proceeded against, leading to discrimination.
Further, it was submitted that the enquiry officer failed to appreciate critical timing-related discrepancies in the documentation and the petitioner was selectively targeted. Even assuming the charges were valid, it was contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive given his long and previously unblemished service.
In response, the airline submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, which was conducted in accordance with law. It was emphasized that no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice was established. The management relied on documentary evidence and contended that circumstantial evidence clearly pointed to the petitioner’s culpability. The other staff members were not implicated because no material linked them to the specific lapse. It was further argued that the penalty imposed was reasonable and not disproportionate, considering the breach of security at an international airport.
Justice M. Dhandapani examined the petitioner’s submissions in the context of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions, the Court recorded that, “Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.” It was further noted, “The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.”
The Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the enquiry on grounds of procedural defect, bias, or denial of natural justice. The petitioner had not made any allegations against the enquiry officer or questioned the fairness of the process. On this basis, the Court held that, “when there is no attack on the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted and the right of the petitioner to present evidence has not been precluded, thereby, there being no violation of principles of natural justice, necessarily, this Court cannot find any fault with the enquiry.”
With respect to the claim of selective punishment, the Court stated, “Merely because no action has been taken against the said officer cannot be said to be a biased act on the part of the disciplinary authority, as the materials on record probabilise the act of the petitioner.”
The Court also addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and held that, “though there are no direct evidence as against the petitioner to establish his guilt, definitely there are circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that the petitioner has been guilty in allowing the passage of the star tortoises through the x-ray machine, thereby aiding and abetting the commission of smuggling of contraband.”
Regarding proportionality, the Court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments and stated that, “The punishment, which is imposed, should be within the domain of the disciplinary authority and only if it shocks the conscience of the Court can it be interfered with.” It added, “The conclusion as to the guilt of the petitioner is based on logical reasoning and the same cannot be said to have been done in an ipse dixit manner.”
The Court acknowledged that this was the petitioner’s first proven instance of misconduct and that he had served over two decades without prior blemish. However, it stressed that airport security roles require high standards of integrity, stating, “Persons employed for the purposes of security should exhibit highest standards of honesty and integrity, else the trust reposed on the said individuals by the institution would diminish in the eyes of the general public.”
Justice M. Dhandapani, having considered the pleadings, enquiry records, and tribunal findings, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the disciplinary action. The Court recorded, “The punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh; rather considering all the circumstances, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment, which is just and reasonable and proportionate to the delinquency committed by the petitioner.”
It further directed, “This writ petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 9.2.2010 in ID No.22 of 2008 passed by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The Court found no legal infirmity in the procedure followed by the management or the tribunal and concluded that the finding of guilt was based on lawful evidence. The High Court declined to interfere with the proportionality of the punishment, noting that the disciplinary authority had exercised discretion fairly by awarding compulsory retirement instead of outright dismissal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, for M/s. A. Gopinath
For the Respondents: Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for R-1
Case Title: T.C. Sekar v. Air India & Another
Case Number: W.P. No. 26586 of 2010
Bench: Justice M. Dhandapani
[Read/Download order]
