D. Sharan vs Indian Airlines And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 813 Del

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) The petitioner by means of this writ petition Is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to cancel the rating and endorsement in respect of his Commercial Pilot's license No. 1504 held by him. The petitioner apprehended threat of such an action because of the Indian Airlines B-737 Aircraft, VT-EAI, on which he was co-pilot, having met with an accident at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 19th June, 1988. The petitioner also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the report of the Inspector of Accidents assailing the same as being illegal, void and in violation of Rule 71 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and also rules of natural justice.

(2) After the filing of the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 2, Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 25th May, 1989 actually passed an order disqualifying the petitioner permanently from obtaining any ratings and endorsement of any passenger aircraft engaged in scheduled air transport service under sub-rule (1) of Rule 39-A of the said Rules and he was also directed to surrender his license to the said office. Earlier to that, by an order dated 20th June, 1988, as a result of some preliminary investigation in respect to the accident, pilot's license held by the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner was further placed under suspension by respondent No. 1, as a sequel to suspension of his pilot's license by order dated 23rd June, 1988.

(3) The matter was partly heard when the petitioner took time to file an additional affidavit to give instances where the respondents had taken a far more lenient action in the case of pilots and co-pilots involved in accidents similar to or as per petitioner's allegations, even more serious than the one for which action has been initiated against him, besides the commander of the aircraft, namely, Capt. Mukund Verma. After the additional affidavit was filed and respondents took time to file the reply affidavit; an order has been passed in the meantime by the D.G.C.A. recalling the notice issued to the petitioner on 4th January, 1989 and also the order passed on 25th May, 1989 whereby commercial pilot's license held by the petitioner was suspended, and he was further disqualified permanently from flying any aircraft or get any ratings or endorsement to fly a passenger aircraft.

(4) Mr. Tewari, appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has placed on record a copy of the order passed on 17th December, 1991 to this effect. He has further explained that this decision has been taken by the respondents on the lines of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Nos. 729 and 1773/87, Cap.. Nvs Chandhoke v. Union of India & Ors., on 13th November, 1991.

(5) In view of (be withdrawal of the notice to show cause issued to the petitioner on 4th January, 1989, and also subsequent cancellation of the pilot's license as well as other disqualifications attached with the order dated 25th May, 1989, it no longer remains necessary to look into the facts, and take note of the arguments so far addressed on merits.

(6) Mr. Bhardwaj has also filed a copy of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Capt. Chandhoke (supra). A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the petitioner is more or less similarly placed as Capt. Chandhoke was, as both were co-pilots of the respective aircrafts. It is also recorded in this judgment that as a result of the withdrawal of suspension and cancellation of the license by the Dgca, the action taken by the Indian Airlines, No. 1 in this case, which consequential upon the order passed by Dgca, is also liable to be quashed.

(7) Mr. Shishir Sharma, Advocate is present on behalf of Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate, Counsel fur respondent No. 1 and faced with the Division Bench judgment, he has no further comments to make.

(8) All the learned Counsel agree that this revision petition can be finally disposed of in the same terms as the judgment in the case of Capt. Chandhoke (supra).

(9) Following the aforesaid judgment, I find it a case where the writ of mandamus is to be issued quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 23rd June, 1988, placing the petitioner under suspension.

(10) I accordingly issue a writ of mandamus quashing the said order dated 23rd June, 1988 and further a writ of mandamus that the petitioner be reinstated on active duty and also to make payment of his full pay and allowances, which would have been payable to him but for the passing of the order of suspension on 23rd June, 1988. He shall also be entitled to all other consequential benefits pursuance to the revocation of order of suspension and reinstatement on active duty.

(11) At this stage, it is pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to take certain tests to qualify himself for renewal of his pilot's license under directions of this Court, and his license was also renewed subject, of course, to the final action to be taken after disposal of the writ petition. Since the basic order of suspension of the license has been voluntarily withdrawn by the Dgca, and the consequential orders issued by respondent No. 1 are also quashed, it is directed that the renewal of the pilot's license given to the petitioner, shall operate as being in continuity, and free from any disqualification.

(12) The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.