Delhi District Court
Cs No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma vs Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." Dod: ... on 9 September, 2014
CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.1582/2013
UID No.: 02405C0320832011
In the matter of:
Shri Anil Sharma,
S/o Shri Shiv Dass,
Chairman (Delhi Region),
Indian Aircraft Technicians Association,
IATA Regional Office Terminal1,
IGI Airport, New Delhi110 037.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri R.P Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Shri Arjun Singh Bisht,
President,
Indian Aircraft Technicians Association,
Central Office TerminalI,
IGI Airport, New Delhi110 037.
2. Shri M.S Kulkarni,
General Secretary,
Indian Aircraft Technicians Association,
Office At: Hanger No.1, N.S.C.B.I Airport,
Kolkata700 052.
.....Defendants
(D1 & D2 Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 17.11.2011
Date of transfer to this Court : 27.04.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 02.09.2014
Date of pronouncement : 09.09.2014
Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 1 of 18
CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF THE ACTION OF RESPONDENT No.2 OF TERMINATING
THE PLAINTIFF DATED 03.11.2011 FROM THE PRIMARY MEMBERSHIP OF IATA AND
FROM THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN, IATA, DELHI REGION AS ILLEGAL,
WRONGFUL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE AND FOR GRANT OF CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF
OF DAMAGES/COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RUPEES FIVE LAKHS FROM THE
RESPONDENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR CAUSING HIM UNNECESSARY
HARASSMENT, LOWERING DOWN/DEFAMING HIS POSITION IN THE EYES OF
SOCIETY AND MEMBERS AND IN THE EYES OF OTHER OFFICE BEARERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION/IATA:
09.09.2014
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a suit for declaration and damages, filed by the plaintiff, who on 03.11.2011, i.e at the time of his termination/expulsion from the primary membership for a period of three years of Indian Aircraft Technicians' Association (hereinafter referred to as "IATA or Association") was the Chairman of its Delhi Region, against its President and General Secretary of the Central Office in their individual capacity.
2. Before understanding the controversy involved in this case, it would be appropriate to have a brief glimpse of the constitution of IATA. IATA is a trade union of the aircraft technicians working in government airlines of India, including the employees covered in AnnuexureB of the constitution. As per Article 3 of its constitution, any aircraft technician/ technician allied to aircraft engineering employed in Indian Airlines Corporation or Air India Corporation, in India or outside agreeing to abide by the rules and byelaws of IATA is entitled to become member of the same. Article 11 provides for management of the association, which consists of:
Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 2 of 18
CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
(a) General Council
(b) Central Executive
(c) Regional Council and
(d) Regional Committee As per this Article, General Council is the supreme body of IATA. It has supreme powers in respect of management and administration of the association and it lays down policies, formulate rules and prescribe reforms. It has power of superintendence over all regional bodies and all the office bearers thereof.
Interpretation of any Article or byelaws of the association by the General Council is final, whereas Central Executive Committee consists of President, VicePresident, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and Treasurer. The Central Executive manages the affairs of the association, financial and otherwise and has all powers of the General Council, when the latter is not in session. It even has the powers to frame Articles and byelaws or to add to it or to alter or to rescind the same when the General Council is not in session.
3. The Regional Councils exist at different administrative zones or units, i.e Bombay, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad. The Regional Council exercises all powers of the Regional General Body for all purposes, unless otherwise mentioned in the constitution. The Regional Council elects Regional Committee from amongst its members. The Regional Committee consists of a Chairman, a ViceChairman, a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, a Treasurer and not more than six other committee members from the Regional Council. Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 3 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
4. Therefore, from the constitution of IATA, it is apparent that the same operates at two levels, one at the central level and the other at the regional level and the committee at the central level commands power of superintendence over the regional committee. Some of the specific Articles of the constitution would be referred to at appropriate places in this judgment.
5. The facts of the case relevant for the controversy in hand are that on 17.01.2011, defendant No.1 issued suspension letter against one Shri G.S Kaushal, who at that time was operating as Assistant Regional Secretary of Delhi Region, by invoking powers vested in him as President of Central Office under Article 8 (d) of IATA. Article 8 (d) of IATA is reproduced as under:
Article 8: Disciplinary Action:
xxxxx
(d) When the President of Association is satisfied about any gross indiscipline on the part of a member of association warranting immediate action, he shall have the power to suspend the member(s) concerned depriving him (them) the right benefits of the Constitution pending enquiry and other action provided on the constitution.
xxxxx
6. This suspension was not taken well by Delhi Region under the chairmanship of plaintiff and as such, an emergency meeting of Delhi Region was called for 25.01.2011 to discuss and decide about the suspension of Shri G.S Kaushal. The meeting duly took place on 25.01.2011 and after discussion and deliberations, the suspension order of Shri G.S Kaushal was not found worthy of given effect to and as such, he was asked to continue to function as Assistant General Secretary of Delhi Region. In this regard an intimation was sent from Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 4 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 Delhi Region to defendant No.1 on 31.01.2011, interalia stating therein that the house of Regional Council had unanimously passed a resolution allowing Shri G.S Kaushal to continue to function as Assistant General Secretary, dehors his suspension letter issued by him. This action of the Delhi Region under the chairmanship of plaintiff was not liked by the Central Executive and as such, on 22.03.2011 a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Central Office to plaintiff, interalia communicating him that it was falsely claimed by Delhi Region that resolution not to give effect to the suspension order of Shri G.S Kaushal was passed unanimously, whereas the eleven councillors of Delhi Region had objected to the same and they had duly represented to the General Council against the meeting in Delhi Region held on 25.01.2011 and he was asked to give reasons as to why his action be not treated as the action bringing down the image of IATA and disciplinary action was proposed against him. On 11.04.2011, the plaintiff sent reply to the Show Cause Notice, interalia pointing out fingers at the conduct of both the defendants and further pointed out that said Shri G.S Kaushal had already approached the court and as such, Central Office should refrain from dissolving the Regional Council of Delhi Region. This reply naturally did not find favour with the Central Office and as such, on 09.08.2011 chargesheet was issued to the plaintiff and a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him, wherein Shri M.F Ashirvadam was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri Brij Mohan was appointed as Presenting Officer on behalf of IATA. Thereafter, the disciplinary inquiry against the plaintiff was set into motion. The Inquiry Officer sent notice of inquiry to plaintiff for 07.09.2011 through registered A.D, speed post, DTDC courier, SMS as well as through E.Mail. The intimation of the date of inquiry was also sent to the plaintiff through Regional Secretary of Delhi Region namely Shri Gurmeet Singh. In Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 5 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 addition, the notice of date of inquiry was also sent personally to plaintiff through peon Shri Som Nath. On the service by courier, report was received with the remark "customer refused to accept". Prior to the date of inquiry, i.e on 07.09.2011, the Presenting Officer received a legal notice dated 03.09.2011 sent to defendants by plaintiff, interalia apprising them that he had moved an application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC in the suit filed by Shri G.S Kaushal. On the said date, statement of witnesses of the department were recorded in the inquiry proceedings. The plaintiff was proceeded "exparte" and the inquiry proceedings were adjourned to 18.09.2011 for the plaintiff to file his objections, if any. The plaintiff even did not participate in the inquiry proceedings on subsequent dates and as such, Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 07.10.2011 to the Central Office, holding the charges against the plaintiff to be proved. After receipt of the aforesaid Inquiry Report by the Central Office, a Show Cause Notice dated 10.10.2011 was issued to the plaintiff by defendant No.2 to seek his objections to the Inquiry Report and a copy of Inquiry Report was also sent alongwith the Show Cause Notice to him. Thereafter, in the meeting of Central Executive held on 30/31.10.2011 the Inquiry Report was deliberated upon and the Central Executive Committee by a resolution passed with its 3/4th majority proposed penalty of termination of plaintiff from the primary membership of IATA. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of Central Executive Committee, on 03.11.2011, termination (expulsion) order was issued against the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the said order in this petition. The grounds of challenge to the aforesaid order in this suit are that the inquiry in the matter was an eye wash, where the principles of natural justice were violated Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 6 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 indiscriminately; the passing of order of termination is the individual action of both the defendants who are inimically disposed towards him and they stage managed the entire inquiry proceedings; that the Central Council is not competent under the constitution to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the plaintiff, as he at the relevant time was the Chairman of Delhi Region. As such, the plaintiff has claimed decree of declaration, declaring his termination communicated to him through letter dated 03.11.2011 as illegal, unlawful and unjustified and allow him to continue to act act duly elected Chairman of Delhi Region upto the completion of his term of two years. He has also sought compensation/damages of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) from defendants for causing unnecessary harassment, mental torture, physical agony, lowering down of his position and defamation committed by the defendants.
8. It is admitted position on record that presently the plaintiff stands retired on 31.07.2014.
9. In the written statement, the defendants have taken certain preliminary objections qua the maintainability of suit to the effect that suit is bad for non impleadment of IATA Central Executive, that this court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of inquiry; that the plaintiff has duly accepted the findings of disciplinary inquiry as he did not avail of the remedy available to him under the constitution of IATA. On merits, it has been stated that under the constitution of IATA, the Regional Council works under the supervision and control of central body and as such, Delhi Region under the chairmanship of plaintiff was not competent to question the suspension of Shri G.S Kaushal. The action of plaintiff in taking the Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 7 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 decision on 25.01.2011 allowing Shri G.S Kaushal to continue to function as Assistant General Secretary was gross indiscipline as admittedly 11 councillors of Delhi Region had objected to the very agenda of meeting dated 25.01.2011 and had complained to the Central Council on the modusoperandi of plaintiff in this regard. It has been further stated that defendants have not acted against the plaintiff in their individual capacity, but have acted under the constitution. The termination order against the plaintiff was passed after due deliberations and under the provisions of constitution, wherein ample opportunities were given to the plaintiff to participate in the inquiry. He deliberately chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings and now he cannot be heard to plead violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. In replication, the plaintiff has denied the averments made in the written statement and has reiterated the ones made by him in the plaint.
11. With these pleadings of the parties, this court vide order dated 04.04.2012 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, as prayed? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5.00 lakhs from the defendants as damages? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
12. In order to discharge the onus of proving the issues, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and has proved on record the following documents:
(i) Termination letter dated 03.11.2011 as Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) Letter dated 17.01.2011, issued by defendant No.1, suspending Shri G.S Kaushal as Ex.PW1/2;Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 8 of 18
CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
(iii) Meeting Notice for 25.01.2011 of Delhi Region as Ex.PW1/3 alongwith the minutes of meeting;
(iv) Resolution dated 25.01.2011, asking Shri G.S Kaushal to continue to function as office bearer of Delhi Region alongwith letter dated 31.01.2011 communicating to defendant No.1 about the resolution as Ex.PW1/4;
(v) Letter dated 18.01.2011, sent to defendant No.1 by some councillors of Mumbai Region has been filed as Ex.PW1/5 which is irrelevant to the controversy in this case;
(vi) Show Cause Notice issued by the defendants to plaintiff dated 22.03.2011 as Ex.PW1/6;
(vii) Reply of the plaintiff dated 11.04.2011 to the Show Cause Notice as Ex.PW1/7;
(viii) Chargesheet dated 09.08.2011 as Ex.PW1/8;
(ix) Copy of the proceedings of inquiry dated 07.09.2011 alongwith the statement of witnesses recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the said date Ex.PW1/9;
(x) Show Cause Notice issued by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff dated 10.10.2011 as Ex.PW1/10 alongwith copy of inquiry report;
(xi) Copy of legal notice dated 24.08.2011, issued by the plaintiff to both the defendants as Ex.PW1/11;
(xii) Copy of second legal notice dated 03.09.2011, issued by plaintiff to the defendants as Ex.PW1/12;
(xiii) Reply of the defendants dated 06.09.2011 to the legal notice of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/13;
Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 9 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
(xiv) Copy of letter dated 17.10.2011, written by plaintiff to defendant No.2 as Ex.PW1/4;
(xv) Copy of order dated 19.09.2011, passed by Ld.ADJ (S/W) District in CS No.759/2011, titled as, "G.S Kaushal V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Ors.", dated 19.09.2011 as Ex.PW1/15 and;
(xvi) Copy of constitution of IATA as Ex.PW1/16.
13. In support of his contentions, he has also examined Shri R.P Singh as PW2 and Shri Gurmeet Singh as PW3; whereas, defendant No.1 has examined himself as DW1. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Shri R.P Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant and perused the entire material on record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
14. Issue No.(i): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, as prayed? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. In order to succeed on this issue, the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendants have acted malafidely, illegally and unjustifiably against him in passing order of his termination dated 03.11.2011 (Ex.PW1/1); the said action of defendants is not justified under the provisions of the constitution of IATA and that the disciplinary inquiry was not conducted fairly in this matter. In order to establish the aforesaid points, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the controversy in this matter arose on account of suspension order of Shri G.S Kaushal, dated 17.01.2011 (Ex.PW1/2), issued by defendant No.1 in his personal capacity by invoking Article 8
(d) of the constitution. The said provision is not applicable in the case of office bearers of Regional Council and as such, plaintiff being chairman of Delhi Region Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 10 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 was authorized under the constitution to not give effect to the aforesaid order and as such, the unanimous resolution of Delhi Region dated 25.01.2011, authorizing Shri G.S Kaushal to continue to discharge his duties as Assistant General Secretary of Delhi Region was well within his powers under the constitution; the said decision was a decision of Delhi Region and not of plaintiff alone and as such, the fault could not have been found by the defendants with plaintiff alone in passing of resolution Ex.PW1/4. Article 8 (d) has already been reproduced herein above, which clearly authorizes defendant No.1 to issue suspension letter against any member of the association. The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the said Article does not apply to the office bearers of association has no basis, as before being office bearer a person has to be a member first and the constitution of Association does not make any distinction between a member and office bearer as far as disciplinary action is concerned. It appears that the said argument has been made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in total ignorance of the provisions of Article 8 (e), which of course came into force by way of amendment, but prior to the passing of order of termination of the plaintiff. The said provision reads as under:
Article 8: Disciplinary Action:
xxxxx
(e) Central Executive Committee can initiate disciplinary action against any member(s)/officer(s) of the Association doing any misconduct or working against the interest of the Association. He/They may be removed from the Association with 3/4th majority votes of the Central Executive. The officer(s) or the member(s) concerned shall be given a hearing to defend his/their misconduct before any action is taken against him/them.
xxxxx Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 11 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
15. During the course of arguments when the attention of learned counsel for the plaintiff was drawn to this provision, then an argument was advanced by him that the Central Council did not have power to amend the Articles without taking into confidence the Regional Councils. I am afraid that the said contention is misconceived as Article 11 (B), Clause (2) authorizes the Central Executive to frame Articles, byelaws when the General Council is not in session. Article 11 (B), Clause (2i) of the constitution of IATA reads as under:
Article 11: Management of the Association:
xxxxx (B) xxxxx (2) The Central Executive shall manage, the affairs of the Association, financial or otherwise and shall have all powers of the General Council, when the latter is not in session. The Central Executive shall have the powers to frame articles and byelaws, or to add to them or to alter or rescind them, when General Council is not in session. Such articles and byelaws shall have the same validity as if passed by the General Council and shall be placed in the next General Council meeting of the Association, for ratification. Such articles and byelaws shall then be deemed to have been permanently incorporated in the constitution of the Association. In case, for any reasons, the ratification is not done, such amendment or alteration of the articles or byelaws of the Central Executive shall be deemed as null and void, from that date and time of the General Council meeting.
xxxxx
16. Article 3 (a) further contemplates that only those persons can be admitted as member of IATA who agree to abide by the rules and byelaws of the Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 12 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 association. Article 7 (b) casts a very important duty on a member which is re produced as under:
Article 7: Duties of Members:
xxxxx
(b) To observe the discipline of the Association and to assist it in its smooth and efficient functioning.
Discipline shall mean to abide by the constitution, byelaws and rules as and when framed by the Central Executive Committee/General Council. All grievances of the members, are to be represented to the respective bodies first then to the Central bodies, if necessary.
Finally, an appeal can be made to the President of the Association who shall dispose off such appeal within a fortnight. No member shall have the right to abuse and accuse any other member or officer of the association openly and publicly. Any deviation to this provision shall be an act of indiscipline.
xxxxx
17. Article 11 contemplates complete supremacy of the Central Council with regard to management and supervision upon the Regional Council and in this case, the decision to pass Ex.PW1/1 was not taken by the defendants individually and it was taken pursuant to the Central Executive Committee meeting dated 3031.10.2011 with 3/4th majority, as contemplated under the constitution in case of office bearers.
18. In the teeth of aforesaid provisions of the constitution, Delhi Region under the chairmanship of plaintiff had taken a nasty decision to pass resolution dated 25.01.2011 and the effect thereof was to undermine the authority of Central Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 13 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 Council. In any case, vide order Ex.PW1/2 Shri G.S Kaushal was only put under suspension and a regular departmental inquiry was proposed against him. It is admitted position at bar that the Civil Court before whom civil suit was filed by Shri G.S Kaushal had only stayed the suspension, but the association was not barred from conducting inquiry against him. The said inquiry was duly conducted. Therefore, the democratic way on the part of plaintiff could have been to ask Shri G.S Kaushal to take up the matter with the Central Council under the constitution or the Regional Council of Delhi should have espoused the case of Shri G.S Kaushal with the Central Council. The Delhi Regional Council should have requested to the Central Council to convene an emergency meeting of the Central Executive to resolve the issue.
19. The plaintiff has not been able to show any Article of the constitution which authorized him to over rule the decision of President of Central Council.
20. This takes us to the second limb of the controversy regarding conducting the departmental inquiry. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the entire disciplinary inquiry was stage managed by the defendants, whereby Shri M. Ashirwadam, the VicePresident of Central Council was appointed as Inquiry Officer, whereas Shri Brij Mohan, the treasurer of the Central Council was appointed as Presenting Officer on behalf of department. This argument is refuted by the learned counsel for the defendant by arguing that considering the fact that the disciplinary inquiry was against the Chairman of Delhi Region, superior office bearers of the Central Council were deemed expedient to conduct such an inquiry to rule out any kind of inappropriate handling of the inquiry. The learned Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 14 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 counsel for the plaintiff has made reference to case law, predominantly based upon Article 311 of the Constitution of India to show that the effective opportunity was not granted to the plaintiff to participate in the disciplinary inquiry. The said judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
21. Now, let us analyze the conduct of plaintiff during the course of inquiry. It is not denied by the plaintiff that he was served with Show Cause Notice Ex.PW1/6 on 22.03.2011, he had duly replied to the said Show Cause Notice vide Ex.PW1/7 on 11.04.2011 and only after finding the reply to be not satisfactory, defendants had resorted to serving chargesheet upon him vide Ex.PW1/8 on 09.08.2011. He was duly intimated about the date of inquiry. In this regard, Ex.PW1/9 is a very relevant document which are the proceedings of disciplinary inquiry dated 07.09.2011, wherein before proceeding to record the statements of departmental witnesses the Inquiry Officer gave details about the steps taken to serve the plaintiff for the said date of proceeding. Perusal of record reveals that the Inquiry Officer made every possible endeavour to serve the plaintiff with the notices of the said date of inquiry, but on most of the modes of service the plaintiff had refused to accept the notices. The plaintiff was duly served with the notices of the date of inquiry personally as well through the Regional Secretary of IATA. He had even sought suspension of the disciplinary inquiry by issuing legal notice Ex.PW1/12, dated 03.09.2011 to defendant No.1 on the ground that he had been making endeavour to move an application for his impleadment in the civil suit filed by Shri G.S Kaushal. The plaintiff did not participate in the disciplinary inquiry despite having knowledge of the same. It is not denied that the seat of inquiry was in Delhi and near to the place of posting of plaintiff itself and he had the Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 15 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 opportunity to participate therein, had he been interested in doing so, but his conduct shows that he was not interested in participating in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 07.10.2011 to the Central Council. The Central Council thereafter sent a further Show Cause Notice to the plaintiff on 10.10.2011 vide Ex.PW1/10, annexing along therewith a copy of the Inquiry Report. The plaintiff even sent reply to defendant No.2 of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice on 17.10.2011, interalia levelling fresh allegations of bias against both the defendants. Thereafter, in terms of the provisions of IATA, the defendants convened special meeting of Central Executive Committee on 30/31.10.2011, where the Council Members with 3/4th majority proposed the penalty of expulsion of plaintiff from the primary membership of IATA. The said decision was communicated to the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/1, dated 03.11.2011. From the entire gamut of facts, it is apparent that the defendants had followed the principles of natural justice, but it was plaintiff who had waived the same and is as such, estopped from putting into service the violation thereof. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "2008 Vol.11 SCC 502", titled as, "Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & Anr. V/s K.C Rahi" can be conveniently referred to. Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, which is relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case is reproduced as under:
xxxxx
8. In the instant case, we have been taken through various documents and also from the representation dated 19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself, it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 16 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014 participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event, plea of principle of natural justice is deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non compliance with the principles of natural justice.
xxxxx (underlining which is mine emphasized)
22. Therefore, the inquiry report cannot be faulted on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice and its findings with regard to acts of gross indiscipline and insubordination on the part of plaintiff is liable to be affirmed. In the present suit, the plaintiff has not impugned the chargesheet, consequent inquiry proceedings and inquiry report. The present suit is further bad in law for nonjoinder of IATA Central Office, its Central Executive and Inquiry Officer. In the evidence recorded in the matter, the plaintiff appears to have taken a false stand that as on 07.09.2011 his wife was ill, whereas, no such plea was taken by him during the inquiry proceedings or after the same in the legal notice dated 24.08.2011. The plaintiff as well as two other witnesses examined in the matter by him, i.e PW2 and PW3 have admitted in their evidence that the Central Office is the supreme body of IATA and is controlling and supervising all the regional councils. The witnesses of plaintiff have categorically admitted that there is no provision in the constitution of IATA, whereby a Regional Council can over rule the decision of President of Central Council. Therefore, the issue is decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 17 of 18 CS No.1582/2013: "Anil Sharma V/s Arjun Singh Bisht & Anr." DOD: 09.09.2014
23. Issue No.(ii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5.00 lakhs from the defendants as damages? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue is again upon the plaintiff. This issue is consequential to issue No.(i). Since the plaintiff has miserably failed in proving the fact that Ex.PW1/1 is bad in law, therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
24. Issue No.(iii): Relief.
In view of specific findings rendered in issue No.(i), the suit of plaintiff is found to be meritless, same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
25. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 09.09.2014 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest
Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi
Suit for Declaration: "Dismissed" Page 18 of 18