CAPT. VIVEK A.SHANBHAG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in this writ petition are governed by the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Aircraft Rules, 1937. As per the provisions of the above Statues, the petitioner was granted Air Line Transport Pilot's License on 25.08.1994 and the same was later on renewed up to 19.10.2015. The Director General of Civil Aviation, issued 'Civil Aviation Requirements' [vide Section 7 Flight Crew Standards Training & Licensing Series 'I', Part I, 27th May, 1998 which came into being with effect from 01.12.2010]. This was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Director General of Civil Aviation [hereinafter referred to as 'the DGCA'] under Rule 133(A) of The Aircraft Rules, 1937. As per the said requirements, the minimum requirements for the approval of Check-Pilots' Instructors & Examiners for the purposes specified in Rule 41-A and Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for scheduled commercial operations with fixed-wing aircraft were specified. According to the same, the Pilots recommended for approval as Examiners / Instructors / Check-Pilots shall be free from prejudices and strong likes and dislikes and capable of recording fair assessments and shall be known for their impartiality towards them. The Clause (3) of the said requirements speaks of 'Requirements of Flying Experience' for various positions including the Instructor. Clause (4) speaks of the privileges of Examiners / Instructors / Check-Pilots. So far as the Instructors are concerned, they have the following privileges:

(2.) The petitioner, as I have already pointed out, is, admittedly, a Pilot having a due license issued by the DGCA. He has also got approval as Check-Pilot and also Initial Operators Experience [IOE]. According to the petitioner, he has got approval as Instructor to enjoy the privileges as referred to in Clause 4.2 of the Requirements as extracted above. In other words, according to the petitioner, he is eligible for Proficiency checks (LR and Route Check) and Instrument Rating (IR) renewal check.

(3.) The petitioner is, admittedly, an employee under the 2nd respondent M/s.Air India Limited. For the purpose of giving training to the Pilots, the 2nd respondent has got some arrangements with M/s.Jet Airways for hiring simulators. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent was to send pilots for training in the simulators. The pilots cannot on their own operate the simulators as they require trainers to train them. The 2nd respondent deputed the petitioner to train its pilots in the simulators. Accordingly, the petitioner trained the pilots in the simulators. The petitioner has further stated that there were some disputes between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner because the petitioner pointed out that though the pilots were to be given training for eight hours a day in the simulators, they were actually given training only for an hour per day , but, still, the amount for eight hours was paid. Thus, according to the petitioner, it was a scam. Therefore, he informed the same to the higher authorities. Instead of taking action in respect of the above said scam, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30738 of 2013, in which, this court, by order dated 13.11.2013, granted an order of interim stay. It is also admitted that subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition, charge memorandum itself was withdrawn by the 2nd respondent.