Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
ORDER BELOW EXH-01 IN C.C. NO. 202/SW/2018
1. Heard complainant. The complainant came up with a case
that he was serving in Air India as a ‘Senior Flight Pursur’ since 2005.
He was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of amount and
consequently after inquiry, terminated from service. The complainant
contended that the inquiry was held on the basis of Certified Standing
Order(CSO) which was not in existence. Thus, the charge-sheet and the
inquiry against the complainant was based on fabricated charges and
forged CSO which constitutes criminal offence.
2. Initially the complaint was filed u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It
was converted into complaint case u/s. 200 CrP.C. followed by
verification of complainant. Further, inquiry u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. was
initiated through local police. The local police filed its report stating
that the complainant was prosecuted by the company for withholding
company’s money which he was supposed to hand over to it. Charges
was framed against complainant on 14.02.2014 and on inquiry he was
found guilty. Even he was charged for filing complaint about flight
operation bypassing rules & regulations of the Regulatory Authority and
was held guilty on 09.04.2014. Similarly, he was also involved in
dishonouring National flag and arrested by the crime branch, in
consequence to that he was suspended on 11.05.2012. Eventually he
was terminated on 21.10.2014 from service by the committee
appointed by the company. In order to take revenge against the
company he has filed multiple cases against the company on baseless
ground. Even he has challenged his termination order before
the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
...2/-
-- 1 of 2 --
… 2 ...
Instead of seeking remedy before Central Government Industrial
Tribunal about Certified Standing Order, the complainant is instituting
baseless cases before different forums. While summarizing its report
the police officer opined that the remedy is available to complainant
before Regional Labour Commissioner, Mumbai.
3. On going through the complaint, the complainant seems to
be aggrieved by the departmental inquiry conducted against him and in
consequence to that, he came to be terminated from the company. From
the statement of the complainant, the allegation against the accused are
that they have conducted the enquiry on the basis of non existing C.S.O.
On perusal of the verification statement as well as the complaint, it is
totally silent on the role of each accused in commission of the alleged
act, which as per complainant constitutes an offence. Prosecuting
employee for misconduct and sacking him from service after due inquiry
doesn’t constitute offence, particularly when there is nothing on record
to establish means rea or actus reus.
4. The grievance of complainant can be very well addressed
before the appropriate forum. Hence, in view of this there is no reason
to prosecute the persons arrayed as accused under criminal law for
want of means rea and actus reus. Accordingly, complaint stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
Date:- 06.09.2024
(J. W. Gaikwad)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --