RAJENDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Chief Flying Instructor of Rajiv Gandhi Academy for Aviation Technology. He has 28 years of experience as a Pilot, out which 10 years is as Chief Flying Instructor. According to the petitioner, through out of his career, both as Pilot and Flying Instructor, there was no allegation regarding his character and conduct. The petitioner is now placed under a predicament, since the Airport Entry Permit issued to him had to be surrendered pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 communication from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. The reason for issuing such direction, is the registration of a crime against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Ss. 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of a lady student of the Aviation academy. She alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with her during training on 1/1/2022. The complaint was submitted on 15/3/2022. On coming to know about registration of the crime, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained anticipatory bail as per Ext.P6 order. The complaint had also given rise to an enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the Aviation Academy. The ICC, after considering the statements of 17 witnesses, including the alleged victim, exonerated the petitioner. Despite these favourable factors, registration of the crime has resulted in the petitioner's Airport Entry Permit being recalled. Hence, this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) Adv.P.A.Mohammed Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the very functioning of a prestigious flying school has come to a standstill due to surrender of the petitioner's Airport Entry Permit. It is submitted that the complaint by the lady student was motivated by the petitioner's refusal to oblige to her request for permission to go on solo flying. The petitioner, as an instructor, had found the student to be lacking in requisite mental fitness for undertaking solo flying. It is contended that the falsity of allegation is evident from the fact that the complaint was lodged only after two months of the alleged incident. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the statements given by the witnesses examined before the Internal Complaints Committee, including student who staying in the same room as that of the complainant.

(3.) It is pointed out that the petitioner's Airport Entry Permit was directed to be surrendered based on paragraph 11.1.0 of the Airport Entry Permit Guidelines, 2019. In this regard, reference is made to paragraph 11.9.1 of the guidelines which reads as under;