Plane recalled; Airhostess arrested by Customs; dismissed by airlines, gets 8 years wages in Supreme Court
Prabha D. Kanan joined Indian Airlines as an Air Hostess on 28th September, 1977. She was promoted as Deputy Manager in In-flight Service Department. On 18th June, 2002, she was put on duty in Flight IC-617-961 operating on sector Mumbai Hyderabad Bangalore Sharjah. When the flight landed at Hyderabad, she along with other crew members went for customs clearance from the Departure Hall to board the connecting flight from Hyderabad to Sharjah via Bangalore. Immediately after take off, it was called back at the request of the Customs Authorities. She was asked to deplane by Custom Authorities. She was arrested for carrying Indian currency amounting to Rs. 22,07,978/- along with foreign currency, viz., 180 UAEDirhams, 13 Kuwaiti Dirhams, 3 Bahraini Dirhams and 20 Nepali Rupees. She is said to have made a confessional statement before the Custom Authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act that she had been carrying unauthorisedly the said amount. Her husband on the basis of her statement was also arrested. The news was widely reported. She was released on bail. Her services were terminated invoking Regulation 13 (which authorizes the Board to dismiss an employee against which there is no appeal) by the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines. On her writ petition, the Delhi High Court held Regulation 13 as ultra vires.
Indian Airlines went in appeal before the Supreme Court and high profile counsel ArunJaitley appearing for the Indian Airlines pleaded
(i) that the High Court committed a manifest error in holding Regulation 13 to be unconstitutional insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the same does not confer any unguided or arbitrary power.
(ii) Regulation 13, does not speak of misconduct. It speaks of justifiable lack of confidence having regard to (a) incompetence, (b) unsuitability and (c) security. Regulation, thus, provides for the specific contingencies specified therein.
(iii) An assessment of such contingencies is required to be made by the highest available authority. What would be the material for arriving at a conclusion is a reasonable apprehension that the act on the part of the employee would be detrimental to the interest of the country.
(iv) The High Court also failed to take into consideration the history of the precedents of the Supreme Court as also how the Regulation was amended having regard to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its order delivered on Friday observed that
(i) Prabha D. Kanan was holding a very high ranking post.
(ii) She was incharge of a flight.
(iii) She was holding a post of trust and confidence. She had been issued a 'Red Airport Entry Pass' which gave unrestricted access to all civil airports in India and flying to other countries on the network of Indian Airlines.
(iv) Admittedly, a suit case was found which was booked by her, which, however, remained unclaimed.
(v) The Custom Authorities found the same. Only Respondent was singled out as the owner of the suit case.
(vi) It is not in dispute that the suit case contained a large sum of money including foreign currencies.
(vii) She was arrested only on her confession.
(viii) The CESTAT had exonerated her.
(ix) In the criminal case, no charge was framed. She was discharged only on the ground that she had not been found liable in the civil proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that Regulation 13 is not unconstitutional but the same is not applicable in the present case. The Court ordered that she be paid eight years' salary towards both back wages as well as for loss of employment in future.
See the full text of the judgement in www.hrindiaonline.com