'Reinstate With All Consequential Benefits': Allahabad High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceeding Against Indian Airforce Wing Commander

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the disciplinary proceedings against pilot-petitioners regarding an aircraft accident in 2008, calling it 'illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of the process of law' due to unexplainable delay and the arising apprehension of malafide therein. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits. The Court noted that in case of a deputation, the borrowing department does not have the jurisdiction to terminate the services of an employee. Moreover, the report based on which the charge sheet was filed does not indicate an error on the part of the pilot or negligence following the due procedure.The petitioner in the instant case is Wing Commander Rajesh Singh Nagar, a member of the Air Force who was sent to the State of Uttar Pradesh on deputation for three years, later extended by another year. The facts of the case arise from a 2008 aircraft accident of a plane flown by the petitioner. After the Directorate General of Civil Aviation [DGCA] investigation, he was permitted to resume the flight duties after attending corrective/additional training. However, in 2014, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner for a six-year-old accident and another accident where he was involved in 2012. Following which he was terminated from service in 2016.BackgroundSenior Counsel Prashant Chandra, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the abrupt issue of charge-sheet after six years by the State Government when he was on deputation from the Indian Airforce is without jurisdiction. It was argued that a deputationist continues to be governed by rules of the parent department, deemed to be under the disciplinary control of the parent department unless absorbed permanently.Secondly, the petitioners argue that a six-year gap in filing the charge sheet is impermissible in law liable to be quashed. Finally, he emphasises that soon after the accidents, no action was recommended against him, but rather he was reinstated to service.Thirdly, the petitioners claim that it was due to 'wake turbulence, an unusual phenomenon that the aircraft impacted the runway with the unusual rate of descent and attitude. However, it was for the exceptional skill and expertise of the petitioner that the aircraft was saved from losing direction and becoming a ball of fire.It is further contended that the order terminating the petitioner's services is based on the investigation report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation BureauAircraft Accident Investigation Bureau [AAIB], which has no such finding against the petitioner. The petitioner calls the investigation 'misconceived' as, under Rule 3 of the Rules 2021, the sole objective of such an investigation of accidents and incidents shall be the prevention of accidents or incidents and not apportion blame and liability. Thus, there is a specific mandate under sub-clause (2) that differentiates such investigation from any judicial or administrative proceeding meant to apportion blame or liability, thus nullifying the validity of the order of termination.Further, the petitioner alleges violations of the principle of natural justice as access to the necessary records were not supplied to the petitioner for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice. Moreover, the inquiry officer has picked selective observations from the AAIB report, holding the petitioner liable and completely letting go of the co-pilot in both the accident cases.Therefore the issues arising out of the said matter are threefold: (a) validity of the termination of services of a deputation by borrowing department; (b) validity of the inquiry due to delays and latches in the inquiry proceedings; and (c) validity of the disciplinary proceeding based on the AAIB report.Advocate Pratyush Tripathi, representing the State-respondent, argued that as per the report of DGCA, the pilot's mistake was identified as the main cause of action and had categorically recommended appropriate action against the pilot for the lapses. It is also argued that when he was reinstated, the report was not finalised, and only after a three-member committee of the State Government recommended the implementation of the DGCA report, a charge-sheet was filed. It is contended that it should not be permitted for him to escape his responsibility for a delay in the inquiry where due to his negligence, the State Aircraft was destroyed.They further argue that the petitioner has not challenged the report wherein the lapses have been identified. It relied on State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2015), where it is held that no oral enquiry is required to prove those charges if charges arise out of a document. While the respondents argue that the petitioner has not been able to prove any irregularity in the enquiry, if the same is found, then the relief should not be reinstatement but remanding back the enquiry. inFindingsThe Court noted that under Clause (3) and (8) of the 2012...

'Reinstate With All Consequential Benefits': Allahabad High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceeding Against Indian Airforce Wing Commander

Shrutika Pandey

Tags