Delhi High Court - Orders
Captain Arvind Singh vs Directorate General Of Civil Aviation & ... on 10 March, 2021
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4313/2020, CM APPL. 15516/2020
CAPTAIN ARVIND SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Nikhil Borwankar, Mr.David
Thomas, Ms.Shimona Ghosh, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain and Ms.Shalini
Nair, Advs. for R-1& R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 10.03.2021 This matter is being heard through video-conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"i. Pass an order directing the Recall and Quashing of impugned suspension order dated 02.07.2020 served upon the Petitioner and to not act in furtherance of the same;
ii. Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 2/CVC to supervise and conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the alleged incident of 25.10.2019 on board the VIP aircraft; and iii. Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 2/CVC to investigate into victimisation of the Petitioner at the hands of Respondent No.1/DGCA and officials involved in the investigation; and iv. pass such other or further order(s)/direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice.
AND IN THE INTERIM, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned order and provide the Petitioner with interim protection from victimisation as under Section 11 read with Section 14 of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014, during the pendency of this Petition."
2. When the matter was listed before this Court on July 21, 2020 Ms.Gosain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, had taken the plea of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the petitioner under Section 3B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
3. I have been informed during the course of hearing, today, that pursuant to the said objection, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 which has not been decided in view of the pendency of the writ petition.
4. Mr.Nikhil Borwankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petition has been filed by the petitioner not only as a person governed by suspension order the provisions of the Aircraft Rules but also as a whistleblower and in view of that, the remedy of appeal would not be an efficacious remedy for the petitioner to pursue.
5. Noting the submissions made including the fact that the petitioner has, in fact, been suspended under the Aircraft Rules and the petitioner has, filed an appeal against the impugned suspension order before the Appellate Authority, appropriate shall be that the said authority decide the appeal.
6. At this stage, Mr. Borwankar says that the liberty be granted to the petitioner to file additional representation before the Appellate Authority and an opportunity of hearing be also granted by the said authority to the petitioner on a given date and time to enable the petitioner advance his case orally.
7. Ms.Gosain has no objection on the petitioner filing an additional representation within ten days from today and, the respondent No.1 shall also give a hearing to the petitioner.
8. If that be so, the representation shall be filed by the petitioner within ten days from today. The Appellate Authority shall inform the time and date for appearance of the petitioner before it to advance his oral submissions. It is expected that the Appellate Authority shall pass a speaking order on the appeal.
9. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the Appellate Authority, he shall be at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition and the connected application are disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MARCH 10, 2021/bh