The court found that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation acted in breach of mandatory legal procedure by suspending Varma’s licence without issuing a show-cause notice or granting him a hearing. The bench observed that this procedural lapse resulted in clear prejudice, as the petitioner was denied an opportunity to present his defence. The court stated that it was therefore appropriate to quash the suspension order and remit the matter back to the regulator for reconsideration in accordance with due process.
The case originated from a 2011 investigation into allegations that certain pilots had obtained licences using forged examination documents. On March 12, 2011, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation suspended Varma’s Airline Transport Pilot Licence after allegations emerged that he had secured it on the basis of a forged marksheet related to an Airline Transport Pilot examination. Following the suspension, he was also arrested and subsequently released on bail after one week in connection with an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
Challenging the suspension before the Bombay High Court, Varma highlighted his long professional record, stating that he had served with Air India for over two decades and accumulated nearly 7,000 flying hours. He also emphasized that he had successfully cleared competency and renewal assessments conducted by examiners approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.
The regulator, however, maintained that Varma had allegedly submitted a forged marksheet indicating a pass in the Air Navigation Composite paper in April 2010. It argued that the licence had been obtained through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.
The division bench of Justices Shreeram V. Shirsat and Manish Pitale ruled that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation failed to comply with Rule 39A of the Aircraft Rules, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before disqualification from holding a licence. The court further noted that the regulator did not produce the allegedly forged marksheet before the court and failed to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence.
Rejecting the argument that the licence could be suspended in public interest during an ongoing investigation, the court held that the provisions cited by the regulator were not applicable to the facts of the case. It also noted that although a criminal complaint was filed in 2011 and a chargesheet submitted, charges have still not been framed even after 15 years.
Concluding that the petitioner suffered serious prejudice due to the denial of a fair hearing, the court set aside the suspension order and restored his Airline Transport Pilot Licence. However, it granted liberty to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to initiate a fresh inquiry under Rule 39A, provided due process is followed and the petitioner is given a full opportunity of hearing. The court directed that any such inquiry must be completed within two months.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s strict insistence on procedural fairness in regulatory actions and highlights the prolonged uncertainty faced by professionals subjected to administrative penalties without adherence to due process.
About The Author
.jpg)
Comment List