' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Nadeem H. Qureshi was a Flight Purser with the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). He was compulsorily retired from service under the provisions of Rule 76 (g) of PIAC Employees (Service & Discipline) Regulations, 1985, under order dated 20-11-1986, issued from the Customers Services Department. His departmental appeal was rejected as per communication to him under letter dated 9-3-1987 addressed to him by the General Manager (Personnel). He preferred this appeal on 12-4-1987.
2. The appellant was imposed the aforesaid punishment on the charges contained in the show- cause notice dated 22-6-1986 served on him, reproduced below:- PIA Our Ref: PO (FS)/P-27962/86, Mr. Nadeem Qureshi, P-27962, Senior Purser. Sub: SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE Dated: June 22, 1986.
1. You Mr. Nadeem Qureshi, P-27962, Senior Purser, Flight Service Division are hereby charged for committing the following acts of misconduct:
(a) That whereas PK-711 of 17th May, 1986 arrived at New York at 1640 hours and PK 712 departed 0747 hour behind scheduled departure of 2200 hours LT with six first class and 254 Economy Class passengers.
(b) That whereas you were detailed to operate the above said flight which got delayed at New York due to operational reasons.
(c) That whereas the technical defect could not be removed within the estimated period and it was decided to serve the meal to the passengers on ground as no restaurant service was available at JFK Airport after 2130 hours on the said day.
(d) That whereas you were accordingly directed by the Station Manager JFK as well as by the General Manager, The Americas, to board the Aircraft for providing meal service to the passengers on board.
(e) That whereas you have wilfully and deliberately refused to board the Aircraft and serve the meal as mentioned above without evaluating the seriousness of the situation prevailing at that moment and interest of the Corporation.
(f) That whereas, thereafter, in this regard you were conveyed the instructions of General Manager, Flight Service through telex No, 180210 but the same were also disobeyed by you deliberately without any justification tenable under law.
(g) That whereas Director Customer Services had to intervene in the matter and directed instructions to feed the passengers on ground on board, however, in the meantime the departure time had been announced and the crew boarded the Aircraft and the food was served to the passengers at 0130 hours LT.
(h) That whereas as per Regulation 10(2) of PIAC Employee (Service & Discipline) Regulations, 1985, you were liable to serve anywhere within Pakistan or outside Pakistan and to perform any duty in air or on the ground and to carry out any lawful order or instructions of your superiors but contrarily you deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the instructions as mentioned above issued to you during the course of employment.
(i) Now, therefore, in view of the above you have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of your superiors and wilfully acted/omitted against the interest of the Corporation and also violated the orders/instructions/Regulations of the Corporation and thereby committed misconduct under Clauses (s), (f) and (a) of Regulation 75 of PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985.
2. You, are, therefore, required to show cause as to why strict disciplinary action should not be taken against you on account of committing aforementioned acts of misconduct. Your reply in this respect should reach the undersigned within three days of the receipt hereof. In case you fail to submit your explanation within the stipulated period it will be presumed that you have admitted the charges and further action will be taken accordingly, as per rules of the Corporation.
(Sd.)
Aurangzeb Khan General Manager (FS)
3. The reply of the appellant dated 25-6-1986 to the show cause notice was as under:-- ' The General Manager (Flight Service), P.I.A.C.
' Sir, ' Reference Show Cause Notice No, PO (FS)/P-27962/86, dated 22-6-1986.
' As amplified earlier in my previous statements i,e, the Flight Service Log and written explanation dated 27-5-1986, I wish to repeatedly clarify as follows:-
(a) Flight PK-712 of 17th May, 1986 was a planned delay and revised departure ex JFK was fixed at 2330 hours LT instead of a scheduled departure i,e, 2200 hours LT. Cockpit crew was informed of the delay, whereas cabin crew was not informed in the hotel.
(b) On reaching the Airport, no formal apology for the above discrepancy was tendered, instead Traffic Assistant Thomas in presence of myself and crew at 2030 hours LT instructed the crew to go on board and arrange dinner. Meanwhile the passengers who were in the lounge were to follow for ground feeding on board.
(c) Being dissatisfied with the instructions which did not come from a responsible officer of the Airline, I requested contact with the Station Manager. In the absence of the permanent/competent Station Manager, Mr. Manan Ilyas introduced himself as the Acting Station Manager and persisted with the instructions referred above in clause (c), of course without clarifying his position as to why we cabin crew were not informed of the delay in the hotel; (i) Mala fide intentions on his part are self-explanatory. Because even on a scheduled departure, dinner is normally served at 2300 hours.
LT, whereas the flight was a planned delay initially for 1-1/2 hours (ii) He simply wanted to relinquish his responsibility and dump the passengers on board for an indefinite period (My point was later certified by the fact that the passengers were confined on board as for more than 5 hours).
(d) Myself and crew were dismayed on his irresponsible and unprofessional handling and informed that Sir, at the present moment, ground feeding on board would be premature and also we highlighted that ground feeding facilities at the Airport are wide open and all the passengers have checked in and also the flight is a planned delay thus the justification of sending the paxs on board for ground feeding at 2030 hour LT is not only unreasonable but categorically violates the laid down instructions of the Cabin Crew Operating Manual (page 132).
' Mr. Ilyas vehemently disregarded the integrity of the Cabin Crew Operating Manual and without availing the Captain's consent (Ref. C/C Optg. Manual page 133) persisted with his stand unchanged.
' The situation which was uncalled for and lacked professional experience on the part of the Acting Station Manager as the stage was in the lounge where the ignorant passengers of PK-712 were the spectators.
' The Captain's consent on ground feeding on board was by-passed by Traffic JFK and General Manager, the Americas and Head Office were unnecessarily involved.
' On telephonic contact with Briefing Room, Karachi, Briefing Officer Hafeezullah Shaikh was conveyed a positive projection on my stand (Ref. Operating Manual). But very unfortunately the Briefing Officer on duty failed to deliver the goods and instead a distorted version highlighting refusal on the part of cabin crew to extend ground feeding was projected in violation of the laid down instruction of the Cabin Crew Operating Manual (pages 132 & 133), Telex No, 180210 flashed from Briefing Room on behalf of the General Manager (Flight Service).
(i) Being convinced that the General Manager has not been conveyed my stand which only was that (i) we, cabin crew are not refusing the call of duty but are simply protesting the violation of Cabin Crew Operation Manual (pages 132 and 133); (ii) Since food was not the issue, we are preventing the inconvenience which was caused to the passengers by confining them on board for 7 hours.
(j) I requested contact with Director Customer Services to apprise him of the factual position at JFK but once again me and my crew were outmanoeuvered by B/Room and identical instructions followed which were duly obeyed.
(k) Sir, despite the fact that cabin crew were made to violate the instructions of the Cabin Crew Operating Manual (Pages 132 and 133), they responded remarkably to the call of duty and looked after the passengers in the lounge for 2 hours and on board for 7 hours. In violation of the flight time limitation, we performed duty beyond 17 hours (Captain's Debrief). Our performance was not only commented by the paxs but also by the Flight Commander (Captain's Debrief).
' I fail to understand as to why me in particular and my crew in general, are being ill-treated and penalised innocently.
' This treatment is being meted out to us at a very crucial juncture because already we are encountering shattered morale problems.
' In reference to the above excesses, my crew and myself have already submitted our respective explanations. Despite this (i) I was called back from my Rostered Flight PK-707 and series of 17th June, 1986 (financial torture to me and to my dependents), (ii) was arbitrarily suspended from duty for an indefinite period.
' Anticipating a judicious and impartial approach in your esteemed capacity. Obediently Yours, (Sd.) N.H. QURESHI P-27962 Senior Purser ' Dated: 25-6-1986 cc: Director Customer Services, Administrative Manager (CSD), Manager Flight Service Scheduling. Assistant Manager (Crew Welfare).
4. The charges were inquired into by an Inquiry Committee consisting of:
(a) Mr. Akhtar Iqbal, Assistant Manager (Briefing Control).
(b) Mr. Asmatullah Khan, Law Officer.
' The Inquiry Committee, by its almost comprehensive report, held the appellant guilty of the charges with certain observations. The findings of the Committee are subdivided in 7 paragraphs spread over five typed pages. The gist of the findings is contained in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced below:- "21. We have given our anxious consideration to the plea taken by the accused employee for persistently refusing ground feeding at the relevant time but find that his act was not in the interest of the Corporation. He did not evaluate the seriousness of the situation prevailing at that time. He should have first obeyed the instructions given to him and any grievance regarding the said orders he could have reported the matter to the competent authority for taking necessary action. This subsequent refusal to obey the positive instructions were not justifiable. He did not obey the instructions of General Manager Flight Service and subjected the Corporation of an embarrassing position.
22. We would like to mention here that the Acting Station Manager JFK should have confronted the accused employee with the operating captain immediately when he issued instructions to him for meal service on ground on board. The accused employee repeatedly requested the Acting Station Manager regarding obtaining consent of the Captain but the Acting Station Manager did not pay any heed and kept on contacting various other agencies which could be unnecessary otherwise.
The matter prolonged only because the Acting Station Manager did not bother to pay any heed to the request of the accused employee for confronting him to the Captain even though the Cabin Crew Operating Manual was shown to him. From all the evidence it is clear that the Acting Station Manager JFK is also responsible for subjecting the Corporation of an embarrassing position.
CONCLUSION:
23. In view of the findings given herein before, we conclude that the charges levelled against Mr. Nadeem H. Qureshi, P-27962, the accused employee in the show-cause notice No, PO (FS)/P- 27962/86 dated 22nd June, 1986 vide Exhibit PW 1/1 though stand proved but the Enquiry Committee feels that the situation became worse due to ignoring constant requests of the accused employee for obtaining Captain's consent and confronting him with the said Captain at that time.
(Sd.)
ASMATULLAH KHAN, ENQU IRY OFFICER.
(Sd. )
AKHTAR IQBAL, ENQU IRY OFFICER.
5. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant has been assailed on various legal and factual grounds. It has been contended that the order is bad in law as the appellant was not given personal hearing and was thus condemned unheard and he was also not supplied copies of the statements of witnesses recorded at the inquiry proceedings. It has further been contended that the findings of the Inquiry Committee were in favour of the appellant and yet he was held guilty of them and he was subjected to discriminatory treatment as the Acting Station Manager too was held responsible by the Inquiry Committee to some extent but no action was taken against him. It has also been contended that the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Committee did not warrant the findings deduced therefrom by the Inquiry Committee. It has lastly been contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the appellant was uncalled for.
6. The respondents have resisted the appeal and urged that the appellant did, by his misconduct, cause embarrassm ent to the Management of the Corporation on a foreign land and adopted a behaviour unbecoming of a good officer. It has also been urged that the guilt of the appellant was established at the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Committee which consisted of two officers and he deserved the punishment imposed on him.
7. The charges against the appellant relate to an incident that took place at New York Airport on 17th May, 1986. The appellant was Senior Purser of Flight No, PK 711 which was carrying six first class and 254 economy class passengers. The aircraft developed a technical defect and the departure of the flight was delayed so much that service of dinner to the passengers became overdue. The Management at the Airport decided to serve the dinner to the passengers on ground as it had become too late to do so at a restaurant at the Airport. The appellant was approached by the Acting Station Manager to board the passengers in the aircraft for dinner service to the passengers on board. The appellant refused to do so without the directions of the Captain, insisting upon the compliance of the rules in that respect. The discord between the appellant and the Station Manager flared up to such an extent that the matter was reported to the General Manager, Flight Services at Karachi and a telex message was flashed from there for on ground feeding of the passengers and yet the appellant did not agree and he asked for orders from the Director, Customers Services at Karachi and the orders had to be obtained from him and the passengers were then served dinner at past mid night and there was lot of resentment from the passengers.
The incident is almost admitted to this extent. The justification sought by the appellant was that under the standing orders, if flight was delayed and meal time was involved, ground feeding could be arranged at the Airport restaurant. The ground feeding on board could be carried out only in coordination with the commander of the flight and the duty Station Manager. The appellant insisted on the orders of the Commander of the flight. Of course, the Commander of the flight was not contacted although he was present some-where at the Airport. It is surprising as to why he was not contacted. However, orders were obtained from the General Manager, Flight Services at Karachi by means of telex message but the appellant did not obey those orders and insisted on getting orders from the Director Customers Services at Karachi and by the time the orders were obtained from him the departure of the flight was announced and the passengers were taken on board and they were served meal there at late hours in the night. It follows that the appellant adopted such stubborn attitude that a grave situation was created on a foreign land that the Management was put to grave embarrassm ent and but for quick action taken by the Acting Station Manager at the airport by obtaining orders of the higher authorities at Karachi and even quicker response from the General Manager, Flight Services and the Director, Customers Services saved the situation which would have otherwise put the Air service to disrepute. The rules and the standing orders the appellant insisted upon to be complied with did provide for ground feeding on board but what was lacking was the coordination with the Commander of the flight. This objection on his part could have been resolved if he and the Station Manager had approached the Commander of the flight and conveniently obviate the unbearable inconvenience that was suffered by the passengers. In case that was not done for any reason, the tussle must have ended when orders on telex were received from the General Manager, Flight Services at Karachi, but the appellant's refusal to obey that order indicated his admancy not to serve dinner to the passengers on board the aircraft. The evidence recorded by the Inquiry Committee demonstrated the incident, as described above, and the responsibility of the disreputable incident lay on the appellant and he was rightly held guilty of the charge. The punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him is neither excessive of nor disproportionate to the charges against the appellant.
8. As regards the legal objection that the appellant was condemned unheard, the objection is belied by the record. It is clearly mentioned in the impugned original order that the appellant was given personal hearing. The appellant has himself placed on record a copy of the letter dated 19- 10-1986 whereunder he was called for personal hearing. Even it is one of the grounds taken by him that he was advised at the personal hearing given to him that he should tender written apology.
There is no legal lacuna in the proceedings taken against the appellant.
9. In view of the reasons recorded above, there is absolutely no merit in appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.