VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2020 › High Court of Delhi

Capt. Rajesh Singh Sehgal v. Ministry of Civil Aviation and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
18 May 2020
Bench
Navin Chawlaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 3215/2018

Judgment

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 18, 2020 rv

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 13.02.2020 Date of decision: 18.05.2020 + W.P.(C) 3215/2018 & CM Nos. 11594/2019 & 11595/2019 CAPT. RAJESH SINGH SEHGAL .... Petitioner Through Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Amita Sehgal, Mr.S.S.Mathur, Mr.S.Singh Malik, Mr.Sidhant, Advs. versus MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Ms.Anjana Gosain, Ms.Shalini Nair, Ms.Himanshi, Advs. along with Mr. Anand Pandey, ADRI, DGCA and Mr.Shiv Tripathi, DD(OPS), DGCA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 -Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the respondent no.2- Director General of Civil Aviation, cancelling petitioner"s Airline Transport Pilot License (hereinafter referred to as "ATPL") as also debarring him from appearing in the Pilot License Examination for a period of three years. 2. The petitioner had appeared for October 2010 session of the Pilot License Examination conducted by the Directorate General of Civil Page 2 Aviation (DGCA) for subjects/courses – Air Navigation, Aviation Meteorology and Radio Aids and Instruments. The petitioner cleared the written as also the oral examination. 3. On a complaint dated 24.11.2011 received by the DGCA alleging that the petitioner had in fact not appeared in the said examination but had made someone else appear for him, an enquiry was initiated by the DGCA. The Central Examination Organisation of the DGCA was requested to check petitioner"s examination sheets and submit a report. 4. The Central Examination Organisation, in its report dated 24.04.2012, opined that there was a mismatch of petitioner"s signatures in the written examination attendance sheet and oral examination attendance sheet for the October 2010 examination. It was also reported that there was a mismatch in petitioner"s signatures between January 2010 attendance sheet and October 2010 attendance sheet/OMR answer sheets, though his signatures in the January 2010 Written Examination Attendance Sheet were tallying with the October, 2010 Oral Examination Attendance Sheet. 5. Based on the above report, the signatures of the petitioner were referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), CBI, which by its report dated 24.07.2012 opined that the petitioner"s initials/signatures in the OMR and the written examination attendance sheet compared with the petitioner"s standard signature reveal that execution of the letters as well as model and design of letters comprising the initials are different from the standard signatures and hence are not comparable. Page 3 6. Armed with the above reports, a Show Cause Notice dated 07.08.2013 was issued to the petitioner as to why action be not taken against him in accordance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937. 7. As no reply to the show cause was received from the petitioner, respondent no. 2 passed the order dated 19.09.2013 finding the petitioner guilty of having adopted unfair means in the Pilot"s License Examination conducted during October 2010 session and held the result of petitioner passing the said examination as invalid. 8. The petitioner claims that neither the Show Cause Notice nor this order was served on the petitioner. 9. On becoming aware of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order before the respondent no. 1. 10. The respondent no. 1, vide order dated 31.12.2013, was pleased to set-aside the order dated 19.09.2013 finding that the Show Cause Notice had not been served on the petitioner. The enquiry was remanded back to the DGCA with a direction to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while keeping the order dated 19.09.2013 in abeyance. 11. Instead of taking up the said proceedings on remand, the respondent no. 2 issued a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2014

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.