Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8902/2014 and CM APPL. 20379/2014
Date of Decision: 18.12.2014 IN THE MATTER OF:
POONAM KHADIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Advocate with petitioner in person
Through: Mr.Lalit Bhasin, Advocate with Ms.Ratna D.Dhingra and Ms.Bhavn Dhami, Advocates for R-1 to 3
Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R-4
JUDGMENT
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 15.12.2014.
2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL had been asked if the grievances raised by the petitioner in her e-mails and legal notice were forwarded by the HR Unit to the Grievance Redressal Cell for examination.
3. Today, Mr.Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL states that the petitioner’s grievances were not referred to the Grievance Redressal Cell for the reason that the only grievance raised by her was that she was not being given an assurance to the effect that she would be provided transport after the duty hours, which is in 2014:DHC:7227 any event, a part of the instructions enumerated in the Cabin Attendant Manual I Chapter 7 at point No.7.2.38.1. He states that merely because a one off incident had taken place when there was some delay in providing her transport, the petitioner cannot attribute motives to the respondents. To substantiate his submission that there was negligible delay in providing transport to the petitioner on 13.9.2014, after she had landed at Delhi upon operating a scheduled flight, he hands over a copy of the Daily Trip Sheet maintained by the transport department of the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL and submits that the aforesaid flight had landed at 10.10AM and the vehicle was made available at 11.15AM and after dropping the petitioner, it had returned to the airport at 12.30PM.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid submission and states that the vehicle was assigned to the petitioner at 11.30AM and not at 11.15AM as claimed. This would translate into a difference of 15 minutes, which would hardly be of material consequence.
5. In any case, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL submits that he does not have any objection if prayer (b) is granted in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the same is only a reiteration of the instructions contained in the Cabin Attendant Manual I Chapter 7 at point No.7.2.38.16, mentioned above.
6. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL are directed to ensure that the petitioner is provided transport after duty hours, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable in that regard.
7. As for the first relief sought by the petitioner, which is for quashing the charge sheet dated 14.11.2014, issued to her by the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL for remaining absent without leave, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already submitted a reply to the said charge sheet on 21.11.2014 and she has taken all the pleas that are available to her.
8. As the matter is still at the initial stage and the respondents No.1 to 3/AIL are considering the reply given by the petitioner, this Court declines to entertain the prayer for quashing the charge sheet. The respondents No.1 to 3/AIL shall be at liberty to consider the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply to the charge sheet and take a decision under intimation to her, in accordance with law.
9. The petition is disposed of, along with pending application. (HIMA KOHLI) DECEMBER 18, 2014 JUDGE mk/rkb