Supreme Court reinstates Check Pilot, awards compensation in natural justice violation case

The Supreme Court found that the removal of the appellant from the position of Check Pilot was in violation of principles of natural justice. Despite typically ordering a fresh inquiry, the appellant's superannuation made it impractical. The Court set aside the removal order, reinstated the appellant as a Check Pilot, and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice principles and providing appropriate relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in removal from position of Check Pilot.

Analysis:
The appellant, a former Indian Air Force officer, joined the second respondent as a Co-Pilot and was later appointed as a Check Pilot. An incident occurred during his command of a flight, resulting in damage to an aircraft. The Permanent Investigation Board (PIB) conducted an inquiry without allowing the appellant to cross-examine witnesses. Subsequently, the appellant was removed from his position as a Check Pilot. The appellant challenged this removal through a writ petition, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The High Court noted deficiencies in the investigation but upheld the removal order, considering the second inquiry not as a de novo inquiry. The Supreme Court found that the removal order was indeed in violation of natural justice principles as the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself during both inquiries. While the Court would typically order a fresh inquiry, the appellant had superannuated, making it impractical. Therefore, the Court set aside the removal order and reinstated the appellant as a Check Pilot, awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the removal of the appellant from the position of Check Pilot was done in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the removal order and reinstated the appellant as a Check Pilot, awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000. The Court emphasized that even though a fresh inquiry would typically be ordered, the appellant's superannuation made it impractical. The Court's decision focused on upholding principles of natural justice and providing appropriate relief to the appellant despite the circumstances.

---