MUMBAI: Bombay high court quashed, as “illegal and unsustainable” a 2011 DGCA order that had left an Air India pilot grounded, holding that it flouted principles of natural justice. The relief came to Jitendra Varma, 15 years on, in a challenge he filed when he was 46 years old. He had alleged being denied his right to a proper hearing. The HC division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsat agreeing, restored his ATPL license to him. He was “not afforded an opportunity to explain his version before taking the drastic step of suspension of license’’ said the HC in its judgment which also gave DGCA liberty to initiate and complete in 2 months an inquiry after following the rules and procedure and then pass a reasoned order.The judgment pronounced on June 8, the first day of the court resuming after the summer vacation, set aside the March 12, 2011 license suspension order of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).Varma had joined AI as a trainee pilot, on getting his commercial pilot license in 1988, was made a co-pilot in 1991 and confirmed in 1992. For 22 years of his service he was found competent and passed all tests and with 7000 flying hours under his belt, he said he was eligible for and issued an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) in September 2010 from USA and later from DGCA. But in March 2011, on a complaint filed in Delhi of alleged forgery in application for ATPL against one captain, he was arrested ad released on bail but his licence was suspended sans any show cause notice or opportunity to defend the allegations, hence he thus challenged before the HC.The DGCA argued that the captain had obtained the ATPL by submitting “forged ATPL result’’ and thus in public safety interest, his license was suspended. The HC observed, “It will also be pertinent to mention here that Respondent has not produced the so-called forged mark-sheet, which was allegedly submitted by the Petitioner.’’The HC perused the rules governing disqualification of a pilot and said there was complete violation of the rules which require a clearly worded notice to begin with. “The Licensing Authority has conspicuously failed to refer to any forged documents or give any reason as to why it has arrived at the said subjective satisfaction of suspending the license of the petitioner,’’ held the HC.The HC said, “A bare perusal of Rule 39-A of Aircraft Rules clearly envisages that before a person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a license, an opportunity of being heard has to be given to that person and, thereafter, licensing authority must pass a reasoned order. The licensing authority has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction based on material which is placed before it and, thereafter, the authority has to give reasons why it feels that license should be suspended or cancelled.’’The rules for emergent use of its power in public interest were also misplaced in this case the HC said. “The petitioner (Varma) is not a convicted person therefore the contention of the respondent that it had suspended the license in the public interest does not stand to reason,’’ the HC ruled.
