AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, who is a senior Air-Craft Engineer in the service of the Indian Airlines, has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 17-2-1994 passed by the second respondent cancelling the Air-Craft Maintenance Engineer Licence of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 17-2-1994 came to be passed under the following circumstances.
A Boeing Aircraft of the Indian Airlines operating from Nagpur to Delhi was involved in an incident on 31-10-1993. During take off from Nagpur, its left hand Main Landing Gear outboard wheel (No. 1 main wheel) came out of its axle. The Aircraft continued its flight to Delhi. After landing at Delhi, during taxing, No. 2 main wheel which was adjacent to No. 1 wheel also burst due to which the Aircraft could not move further1. The investigation of the incident revealed that No. 1 main wheel had come out as a result of failure of its bearing which was checked, inspected and installed by the petitioner during the last wheel assembly on 11-9-1993 at Hyderabad. As the investigation revealed that the petitioner had carried out perfunctory inspection of the bearing, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner on 7-1-1994 asking him to explain why action should not be taken against him under Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for the aforesaid lapses. The petitioner replied to the show-cause-notice on 19-1-1994 stating that there was no lapse or perfunctory inspection on his part and after completion of the inspection he had applied proper lubrication to the bearing which is also required to be ensured by the engineer installing wheel on the landing gear.
Subsequently on 23-1-1994 No. 1 main wheel was traced at Nagpur. Detailed metallurgical investigation of the wheel along with the other parts recovered with the wheel was carried out. The metallurgical investigation confirmed that the wheel had come out as a result of failure of the bearing which was due to cage fracture. Another show-cause-notice was then issued to the petitioner on 10-2-1994 asking him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him under Rule 61 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for perfunctory inspection. The petitioner sent a reply to the second show-cause-notice on 15-2-1994 stating that he had carried out proper inspections as per the laid down procedures on the wheel assembly when it visited for tyre change. He found no abnormality on the components-whatsoever including the bearing parts. The cage, as usual, was inspected for any crack, bend/distortion or wear on the outer surface and wobbling and was found satisfactory. The petitioner further stated that the wheel has done more than normal landings (185 landings) after the tyre change which speaks of proper inspection.
After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent came to the conclusion that improper inspection of the bearing and its components by the petitioner during wheel assembly resulted in the failure of the bearing and that the petitioner is, therefore, blameworthy of perfunctory inspection of the bearing. As a result the No. 1 main wheel of the Aircraft came out during take off from Nagpur jeopardising the safety of the Aircraft and its occupants. Accordingly the second respondent, in exercise of the powers delegated to him, cancelled the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licence No. 2657 of the petitioner with effect from the date of the incident under Rule 61 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
The petitioner assails the order mainly on the ground that it is violative of Rule 77-C(3) and Rule61(10) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and it is also contended that the order is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating inter alia that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner by way of issuing two show-cause-notices and that the impugned order is perfectly valid and unassailable.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is based at Hyderabad, carried out the last wheel assembly on 11-9-1993 at Hyderabad. Thereafter the Aircraft made 187 landings before the incident which occurred on 31-10-1993. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that an investigation of the incident was carried out and based on the result of the said investigation, the impugned order was passed. It is the main contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him as envisaged in Rule77-C(3) and the investigation was carried behind his back. A copy of the enquiry report was also not furnished to him though he specifically made a request for supplying a copy of the same to him by his representation dated 24-11-1993. This allegation of the petitioner is denied in the counter-affidavit by stating that the petitioner never asked for a copy of the report and it was never the intention not to provide the report to th_e petitioner and the findings were made known to him in show-cause-notice. Rule 77-C of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 reads as follows:
"77-C. Investigation of an incident:
(1) The Director-General may order the Investigation of any-incident involving an aircraft or a person associated with the maintenance and operation of aircraft, or both, and may, by general or special order, appoint a competent and duly qualified person having experience in aviation accident/incident investigation as Inquiry Officer for the purpose of carrying out such investigation.
(2) The investigation referred to in sub-rule (1) be held in private.
(3) The investigation shall be conducted in such a manner that if a charge is made or is likely to be made against any person and if it appears to the Inquiry Officer to be practicable so to do that person shall be given notice that blame may be attributed to him, and thereupon he may be given a reasonable opportunity of being present and making any statement or giving any evidence and producing witnesses on his behalf and examining any witnesses from whose evidence it appears that blame may be attributed to him......."
A reading of Rule 77C reveals that the investigation contemplated by the said rule is in the nature of a general investigation of any incident involving an air-craft. Public notice of such investigation may be given and any person who may desire to make a representation concerning the circumstances or causes of the incident may do so in response to the public notice. The Enquiry Officer makes a report to the Director General with regard to the incident giving his conclusions as to the causes of the incident and adding any observations and recommendations for avoidance of similar incidents in future. Having regard to the nature of the said investigation, it may or may not be clear at that stage that blame may be attributed to any particular person for the incident. It may not, therefore, be possible or practicable to give notice and opportunity to such person at that stage. That is why sub-rule (3) of Rule 77C itself leaves the matter to the discretion of the Enquiry Officer to consider whether it is practicable to give notice and opportunity to such person. Rule 61 of the Aircraft Rules deals with licensing of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. Sub-rule (10) of the said Rules provides that:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, the Central Government may, after such inquiry as it may deem fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancel, suspend or endorse any licence granted under this rule where it is satisfied that:--
(a) the holder of such licence has performed work, or granted a certificate in respect of work which has not been performed in a careful and competent manner, or
(b) the holder of such licence has signed a certificate in respect of any matter which he is not licensed to deal with, or
(c) it is undesirable for any other reason that the holder of such licence should continue to exercise the functions of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer."
Sub-rule (10) of Rule 61 thus envisages opportunity being given to the licensee, before cancellation or suspension of the licence. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of opportunity at the stage of investigation under Rule 77C is mandatory and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that it violates the said provision.
This does not, however, conclude the matter as admittedly in the instant case copies of the Enquiry Officer''s Report and the subsequent laboratory investigation report were not furnished to the petitioner. In his affidavit the petitioner averse that he specifically made a request for supplying a copy of the same to him by his representation dated 24-11-1993. This allegation is denied in the counter-affidavit. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a copy of the enquiry report has to be furnished to the delinquent irrespective of the fact whether he asked for it or not and that failure to furnish the enquiry report to him amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Sri P. Innayya Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, however, contends that the Constitution Bench ruled that the court should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished and that he is willing to now furnish the copies of the said report to the counsel for the petitioner and the Court may order giving the petitioner an opportunity to show how he was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report.
In a matter concerning the safety of air-craft and the passengers, the Court will not lightly interfere with an order cancelling the licence of a person who is found to be guilty of perfunctory inspection of the aircraft. At the same time, when the valuable right of the petitioner to carry on his profession is involved and when his livelihood and reputation are at stake, the Court will naturally insist on the observance of the procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice. I am afraid, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the non-supply of the copies of the said reports to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which are already noticed above, I am satisfied that the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-supply of the copies of the said reports which formed the very basis for taking action against the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order dated 17-2-1994 cancelling the aircraft maintenance licence of the petitioner is set aside. Copies of the said reports are now furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry from this stage giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the said reports and also to adduce evidence if any in his defence. After conclusion of the enquiry and after considering any further representation that may be made by the petitioner, the competent authority may pass appropriate orders. Meanwhile it will be open to the authorities to consider whether to suspend the aircraft maintenance licence of the petitioner pending the completion of the enquiry, or not.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly.