Full Judgment Text
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of Decision: 23 January, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 11490/2021, CM APPL. 49890/2022
PRAKASH KRISHNA SHAMBHARKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advocate.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, SC with Mr. Archit
Mishra and Mr. Aayush Anand,
Advocates for AAI with Ms. Tanya
Rohilla, Manager (Law) with
Mr. Jayesh Bhargava, JE (Law).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. The Petitioner assails the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of
compulsory retirement with retiral benefits imposed upon him.
The Controversy
2. The controversy centres around two communications issued by the
Petitioner while he was posted as Airport Controller at Raipur Airport,
th th
namely letters dated 6 January, 2007 and 25 June, 2007, in relation to a
private entity, Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd., which was pursuing approvals
for flying training activities and allied operations. According to Airports
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 1 of 21
1
Authority of India , the Petitioner, without authority, issued the said
communications, which were subsequently relied upon by the private entity
to obtain regulatory approvals, thereby conferring an undue benefit and
compromising established institutional protocols.
3. The Petitioner disputes these allegations and contends that the
communications in question were not “ No Objection Certificates ” in the
legal or operational sense. It is asserted that the letters were routine
communications issued in good faith at the station level, during a period
when the delineation of duties and delegations was, according to the
Petitioner, not clearly codified. The Petitioner denies any intent to mislead
or to confer an undue advantage upon any third party.
Background and Chronology
4. The Petitioner joined AAI in the year 1991. During his tenure as
Airport Controller at Raipur Airport in 2007, Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
sought approvals for establishing a Flying Training Institute and,
subsequently, for change of base of its operations. The two communications
th th
attributed to the Petitioner, dated 6 January, 2007 and 25 June, 2007, form
the foundation of the disciplinary action initiated against him. The same are
extracted hereunder:
th
Letter dated 6 January, 2007
“To,
The Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
7, Building No.389, South Ex. Tower,
South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi-110 049.
Subject: Allotment of Parking Place, /Allotment of Space for
Hanger. Use of Runway, Provision of Air Traffic Control Services,
1
“AAI”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 2 of 21
Safety Services, for the purpose of Flying
Sir,
With reference to your letter dated January 5th 2007 on the
subject cited above this is to inform you that,
1) At Raipur Airport we have disused Runway where parking for
Single Engine 4 Numbers of aircraft and One MEL will be allotted to
you initially only after your Company received your Training Aircraft,
You have to make permanent Arrangement of parking for your own
Aircrafts in your Own hanger.
2) Use of Runway, Provision of Air Traffic Control Services will be
provided Within the ATC watch hours at Raipur Airport
3) At present we have Fire Fighting Category VI at Raipur Airport,
which is Suitable for flying club single, engine Aircraft for the purpose
of Training Flights. Safety Services for the purpose of flying will be
provided within the ATC watch hours at Raipur Airport.
4) At present there is No flying Club in Raipur Airport. For the
purpose of flying Training/Hanger spaces for parking of aircrafts you
have obtain necessary permission or NOC from our Airports
Authority of India CHO, New Delhi.
Thanking You
PRAKASH SHAMBHARKAR
APC, RAIPUR AIRPORT”
th
Letter dated 25 June, 2007
“To.
The Managing Director,
SaI Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 7, Road No. 1, Silver Oak Marg Ghitorni,
New Delhi-110030.
Sub:- Provision of ATC services at Bilaspur Airport for local flying
operation
Sir,
With reference to your letter dated 25.06.2007. This is to
inform you that there is no ATC operation at Bilaspur Airport.
Therefore during the local flying at Bilaspur Airport clearance to be
obtained positively form Raipur ATC and in co-ordination with
Mumbai FIC, Raipur ATC has NO OBJECTION to provide ATS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 3 of 21
services for local flying at Bilaspur in co-ordination with Mumbai
FIC.
Yours Faithfully
Date: 25.06.2007
P. Shambharkar
Airport Controller”
5. A major penalty charge-sheet was thereafter issued to the Petitioner
under Regulation 29 of the Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003. A departmental inquiry ensued,
th
culminating in an inquiry report dated 20 September, 2019, wherein both
Articles of Charge were held to be proved. Accepting the findings of the
Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of
st
compulsory retirement by order dated 1 September, 2020. The appeal
preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority
th
on 26 March, 2021.
Articles of Charge
6. The Articles of Charge framed against the Petitioner are summarised
as under:
6.1. Article I alleged that the Petitioner “ unauthorizedly issued ” a letter
th
dated 6 January, 2007 to Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. permitting Air
Traffic Control services at Raipur Airport.
6.2. Article II alleged that the Petitioner “ unauthorizedly issued ” a letter
th
dated 25 June, 2007 described as a “ No Objection Certificate ” from the Air
Traffic point of view, and that he made endorsements such as “ Flying
School ” and “ NO OBJECTION ”, thereby conveying a misleading
impression that an official AAI NOC had been granted in favour of the said
private entity.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 4 of 21
7. The statement of imputation expands the allegations: that the letter
th
dated 6 January, 2007 was utilised by the private entity for obtaining in-
principle approval for a Flying Training Institute at Raipur, while the letter
th
dated 25 June, 2007 was relied upon to secure approval from the
2
Directorate General of Civil Aviation for shifting base/operations to
Bilaspur. The imputation also records that AAI considered the issuance and
the non-retention of these letters in official records as reflective of
irregularity, and it also adverts to the CFSL opinion attributing the relevant
writing to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner’s contentions
8. The two communications relied upon by the Respondents have been
erroneously elevated to the status of “ No Objection Certificates ”, and the
disciplinary findings rest on that foundational mischaracterisation rather
than on any proved act of unauthorised grant of permission.
8.1. The premise embedded in the charge that the communications were
“ unauthorised ” is disputed. At the station level, the Airport Controller
functions as the operational point of contact for Air Traffic Management
related correspondence and is expected to respond to communications
received at the unit. A response to an incoming query, by itself, cannot
constitute misconduct unless it is shown that the communication crossed
jurisdictional limits and purported to grant an approval which lay beyond the
officer’s authority.
th
8.2. The letter dated 6 January, 2007 is neither an NOC nor an approval.
It is a factual and preliminary response to an enquiry regarding facilities and
operational feasibility. Emphasis is placed on the portion of the letter which
2
“DGCA”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 5 of 21
recorded that any “n ecessary permission or NOC ” for flying training and
hangar or parking facilities was required to be obtained from AAI Corporate
Headquarters, New Delhi. The communication is only cautionary and
conditional, directing the proponent to the competent authority rather than
conferring any permission.
3
8.3. Reliance is placed on the DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements ,
Section 7, Series D, Part I, which prescribe the parameters for issuance of an
NOC from the Air Traffic Services perspective. The said framework
contemplates a defined operational assessment and checklist, and the letter
th
dated 6 January, 2007 does not satisfy those requirements. A document
which neither undertakes the mandated assessment nor records clearances in
the manner contemplated by the CAR cannot subsequently be treated as an
ATS NOC merely because it responded to an initial query.
th
8.4. Similarly, the letter dated 25 June, 2007 is not accepted to be an AAI
NOC for establishment of a flying training school at Bilaspur. Bilaspur did
not have Air Traffic Control facilities at the relevant time; any local flying
activity necessarily required coordination arrangements; and the
communication merely indicated that there was no objection from Raipur
ATC to providing services for local flying in coordination with Mumbai
FIC. The letter is, thus, only a coordination-related communication. It did
not purport to grant approval to set up a flying school, nor did it confer any
right upon the proponent to commence training operations without obtaining
the requisite approvals from the competent authorities.
8.5. The adverse inference drawn from the alleged absence of station-level
records is also disputed. Non-availability of office copies, dispatch entries,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 6 of 21
or complete documentation is attributed to staffing constraints,
administrative transitions, and the operational realities prevailing at the
station at the material time. Deficiencies in record management, without
more, are insufficient to establish misconduct, particularly where the burden
lies on the Respondents to prove the issuance of an unauthorised and
culpable permission.
8.6. On procedure, a separate challenge is raised founded on principles of
natural justice and compliance with the governing inquiry framework. It is
urged, inter alia , that (i) listed/material witnesses were not examined, (ii)
effective opportunity of cross-examination was denied, and (iii) reliance was
placed on written statements and documents without producing their authors
for examination. These departures vitiate the inquiry as they strike at the
fairness of the fact-finding exercise. The principle invoked is that while
disciplinary proceedings do not mirror a criminal trial, the delinquent
employee must nevertheless be afforded a real and effective opportunity to
meet the case against him, and denial of such opportunity, where it causes
prejudice, renders the disciplinary outcome vulnerable to judicial review.
The Respondent’s contentions
9. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that no case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The defence
proceeds on the premise that the petition seeks a re-appreciation of evidence
and substitution of the Court’s view for that of the disciplinary authority,
which is impermissible. Once a departmental enquiry is conducted in
accordance with the governing disciplinary framework and the findings are
supported by some evidence on record, the Writ Court does not sit as an
3
“CAR”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 7 of 21
appellate forum over the correctness of the factual conclusions or
proportionality of the inferences drawn therefrom.
9.1. On merits, the Petitioner had no competence to issue either of the two
communications in the form and tenor in which they were issued. The
documents were not innocuous station-level replies but communications
capable of being understood and acted upon as permissions or clearances.
The private proponent, in fact, utilised the letters to secure regulatory and
administrative advantage. Considering the Petitioner’s position and
awareness of institutional protocols, issuance of any communication capable
of being construed as an NOC or as an operational clearance for flying
training activities is impermissible. Emphasis is placed on the institutional
and safety-related risks involved in aviation operations, where permissions
and clearances are required to follow a clearly defined chain of approvals.
9.2. The absence of office copies and/or dispatch entries cannot be
characterised as a minor administrative lapse but as a serious irregularity,
particularly when the communications pertain to operational and safety-
related matters and are subsequently relied upon by a private entity.
Maintenance of contemporaneous records is integral to accountability in
aviation administration, and the failure to retain office copies or to maintain
traceable dispatch details fortifies the inference that the communications
were not issued through proper channels and were outside the institutional
framework.
9.3. The Disciplinary Authority did not act mechanically or with pre-
determination. The explanation offered, including the assertion that the
communications were conditional/cautionary and not intended as NOCs,
was examined at length, but was found unpersuasive when assessed in light
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 8 of 21
of the nature and tenor of the documents, their actual use by the private
entity, and the admitted role of the Petitioner in issuing them.
9.4. The challenge on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice and procedure is devoid of merit. The Petitioner was afforded
adequate opportunity at all stages of the proceedings, including issuance of
the charge-sheet, supply of relied-upon documents, participation in the
inquiry, and consideration of the representation submitted after furnishing of
the inquiry report. Further, the grievance relating to cross-examination and
non-examination of witnesses is unsupported by the inquiry record. Neither
the Petitioner nor the defence assistant sought examination of specific
witnesses or insisted upon cross-examination during the inquiry
proceedings. The presenting officer elected to rely primarily on
documentary evidence, and in such circumstances, the inquiry is not vitiated
merely because oral witnesses were not produced.
Issues
10. The petition raises the following questions for determination:
10.1. Whether the findings of guilt on Article I and Article II suffer from
perversity, absence of evidence, or such patent unreasonableness as would
justify interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
th
10.2. Whether, on a fair and holistic reading, the letters dated 6 January,
th
2007 and 25 June, 2007 could be construed as unauthorised No Objection
Certificates or as communications intended to convey an AAI NOC, and
whether the explanation offered plausibly dislodges the charge on the
standard applicable to departmental proceedings.
10.3. Whether any procedural infirmity, including the grievance relating to
non-examination of witnesses and denial of cross-examination, stands
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 9 of 21
established from the inquiry record, and if so, whether such infirmity caused
prejudice sufficient to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.
10.4. Whether the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner is so
disproportionate to the misconduct proved as to shock the conscience, within
the limited parameters recognised in service jurisprudence.
Scope of judicial review
11. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not convert this Court
into a second forum of fact-finding over a departmental inquiry. Interference
lies where the decision-making process suffers from a jurisdictional error, a
manifest breach of natural justice, reliance on no evidence, findings so
unreasonable as to amount to perversity, or a penalty so disproportionate
4
that it shocks the conscience. Within these bounds, the inquiry authority
remains the primary judge of facts, and this Court tests the legality and
fairness of the process rather than re-appreciating the evidence.
12. This restraint assumes significance where the charge turns on
contemporaneous official documents and the disciplinary authority has
recorded reasons after affording opportunities contemplated by the
governing regulations. In such circumstances, judicial review is concerned
with whether the delinquent officer had a fair chance to meet the case and
whether the conclusions rest on material that a reasonable authority could
accept.
13. Even within this narrow compass, the Articles of Charge warrant brief
examination on merits, since the challenge is pitched on authority and
character of the communications. The Court accordingly proceeds to
4
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC
610; State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao 1963 SCC OnLine SC 6.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 10 of 21
examine them.
Article I
th
14. Article I concerns the letter dated 6 January, 2007 addressed to M/s
Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. The charge is that, though competence to
issue an NOC or any operational assurance for provision of Air Traffic
Control services vested with AAI Corporate Headquarters, New Delhi, the
Petitioner, acting at station level, issued a communication which effectively
held out that ATC services and allied facilities would be made available at
Raipur Airport for the proposed flying training activity. The statement of
imputations adds two factual features which, according to AAI, aggravate
the misconduct: first, that the letter was relied upon in the regulatory
processing of the private entity’s proposal before DGCA; and second, that
no office copy or official dispatch trail was available in station records.
15. The inquiry finding on Article I is anchored primarily in documentary
th
material. The letter dated 6 January, 2007 forms the fulcrum. The inquiry
also proceeds on the institutional position that the power to issue an NOC or
to commit AAI to provide ATC services did not vest in a station officer.
16. In disciplinary proceedings, which are governed by the standard of
preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
existence of such communication on official letterhead, its issuance under
the hand of the Petitioner, and its subsequent utilisation within a regulatory
process, together constituted relevant material. On such material, a
reasonable fact-finding authority could legitimately conclude that an
unauthorised institutional assurance had been conveyed. As emphasized by
the Supreme Court in S. Sree Rama Rao, B.C. Chaturvedi and P.
Gunasekaran , the Writ Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 11 of 21
findings recorded in departmental proceedings, nor does it undertake a re-
appreciation or re-weighing of the evidence. Interference is confined to well-
recognised grounds, such as procedural illegality, violation of the principles
of natural justice resulting in demonstrable prejudice, mala fides , or findings
that are perverse, arbitrary, or based on ‘ no evidence ’. So long as there is
some evidence which reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the
disciplinary authority, the adequacy or sufficiency of that evidence lies
beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
17. The Petitioner’s central defence is interpretive: that the letter was not
an NOC and expressly indicated that “ necessary permission or NOC ” for
flying training and hangar/parking had to be obtained from AAI Corporate
Headquarters. However, the relevant question is not whether the letter uses
the expression “ NOC ” or whether the Petitioner subjectively intended an
NOC. In the context of a proposal for aviation activity requiring regulatory
scrutiny, the Petitioner issued a communication which, objectively read,
carried institutional weight and conveyed more than neutral, routine
information.
18. Even assuming the letter contains a caveat as contended, the enquiry
and the disciplinary authority were entitled to examine the document as a
whole, in its regulatory setting, rather than isolate a single line and treat it as
dispositive. Where the institutional framework centralises competence at
Headquarters, a station-level officer cannot, by combining (a) statements
that operational services/facilities would be made available and (b) a
concluding reference to Headquarters permission, convert an otherwise
unauthorised assurance into a communication that has the potential of being
legally binding. The safer and procedurally consistent course, if the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 12 of 21
Petitioner genuinely lacked competence, was to confine the response to a
clear statement that no station-level assurance could be issued and that the
proponent must approach Corporate Headquarters for any permission or
NOC, without any language capable of being deployed as an operational
comfort letter.
19. The inquiry also treated the non-availability of office copy and
dispatch record as a relevant surrounding circumstance. That aspect does
not, by itself, prove misconduct. However, in a regulated environment where
communications concerning operational services can have consequences
beyond the station, absence of traceable record is a legitimate factor in
assessing whether the act was in conformity with institutional discipline and
whether the safeguards of accountable communication were observed. The
Petitioner’s explanation of staffing constraints and record-management
deficiencies was considered, but it does not erase the basic position that the
Petitioner accepts issuance of the communication and does not establish any
authorised channel through which such a letter could have been issued.
20. A disciplinary finding does not become perverse merely because an
alternative view on these attendant circumstances is possible. As explained
5
by the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. ,
perversity is attracted only where the conclusion drawn is such that no
reasonable person, acting on the material on record, could have arrived at it;
or where relevant and vital evidence has been ignored; or where the finding
rests on no evidence at all. Likewise, in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v.
6
Nemi Chand Nalwaya , the Court reiterated that so long as the conclusion
5
(1999) 2 SCC 10.
6
(2011) 4 SCC 584.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 13 of 21
reached by the disciplinary authority is a plausible one, supported by some
material which a reasonable authority could accept, the writ court does not
interfere merely because another view is possible or because it may itself
have drawn a different inference.
21. Measured against the governing limits of judicial review, Article I
th
does not invite interference. Issuance of the letter dated 6 January, 2007 is
admitted by the Petitioner. The competence to issue an NOC or operational
assurance vested with Corporate Headquarters, and no regulation, delegation
or authorisation to the contrary has been shown by the Petitioner. The
finding that the Petitioner exceeded authority is a plausible inference on the
material produced in inquiry. It is neither perverse nor a “ no evidence ”
finding.
Article II
22. Article II proceeds on a more serious plane than a dispute over
phrasing. It alleges that the Petitioner, without authority, issued the
th
communication dated 25 June, 2007 which, from an air traffic perspective,
conveyed a “ no objection ” for a “ Flying School ”, thereby creating an
impression of institutional clearance beyond his competence.
23. The statement of imputation and the inquiry record place this
communication squarely in a regulatory setting. The record reflects that the
DGCA required an AAI “ no objection ” for shifting the base, and that Sai
th
Flytech relied upon the Petitioner’s letter dated 25 June, 2007 as meeting
that prerequisite. The inquiry also had before it a CFSL opinion attributing
the relevant writing to the Petitioner, and correspondence indicating that
AAI Corporate Headquarters later informed the DGCA that no such NOC
had been issued by the competent authority. These factors go to the core of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 14 of 21
the charge.
24. The Petitioner seeks to situate the letter within an operational
coordination context, emphasising that Bilaspur lacked ATC facilities at the
relevant time and that local flying required coordination with Raipur ATC
and Mumbai FIC. The further submission is that the contents did not match
the internal and DGCA-facing checklist elements expected of an AAI ATS
NOC, and therefore the document could not be treated as an “ NOC ” in law
or in operations.
25. Such defence, even if accepted as the Petitioner’s explanation of
intent, does not invalidate what the inquiry was entitled to examine, i.e., the
communication and its regulatory effect. A station officer may, in the course
of routine functioning, convey factual information or suggest coordination
modalities. The difficulty arises when the language employed crosses from
conveying information to communicating assent in terms that a recipient can
reasonably present to a regulator as a clearance. Where the text uses the
formulation “ NO OBJECTION ” in the context of a “ Flying School ”, the
inquiry was justified in treating it as more than an internal note. In such
matters, the legal character of the act is tested by what the communication
conveys in its setting, and by the institutional competence required for such
assent, not by the ex-post description offered once the document becomes
the subject of proceedings.
26. The element of competence is decisive. The charge is not that the
Petitioner coordinated local flying. The charge is that the Petitioner
conveyed a “ no objection ” in a domain where, on the record, the power to
issue such regulatory-facing assurances vested at the level of Corporate
Headquarters. Once the inquiry found, on record, that the Petitioner was not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 15 of 21
authorised to issue an AAI “ no objection ” of this nature, the further fact that
the communication was used by the private entity as a regulatory input only
reinforces the impropriety. The inquiry was therefore entitled to conclude
that the act amounted to an unauthorised institutional commitment, and not a
mere operational advisory.
27. The absence of office copies and dispatch records also cannot be
brushed aside as an insignificant lapse. In regulated aviation administration,
traceability of communications which can affect third-party permissions is
integral to accountability. When a letter is later relied upon as a prerequisite
for shifting a base and commencing training operations, the inability to
produce an office copy or an official despatch record is a relevant
circumstance in assessing the propriety of issuance. The Disciplinary
Authority was entitled to treat this as aggravating, even if it was not, by
itself, the sole foundation of guilt.
28. In judicial review, this Court, as discussed earlier, does not re-weigh
the evidentiary value of the letter as though sitting in appeal. Interference is
warranted where the finding rests on no evidence, ignores material that
strikes at the root, or is so unreasonable that no prudent decision-maker
could have arrived at it. The decisions of the Supreme Court in B.C.
Chaturvedi, P. Gunasekaran and Nemi Chand Nalwaya repeatedly caution
against re-appreciation of evidence in disciplinary matters and confine
judicial review to the decision-making process and to perversity in the strict
sense.
29. Thus, the finding on Article II is founded on material. The inquiry had
th
the letter dated 25 June, 2007, its language, the context of its use before the
DGCA, the CFSL opinion attributing authorship, and the position of AAI
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 16 of 21
Corporate Headquarters that no competent NOC had been issued. The
Petitioner’s attempt to re-characterise the letter as a coordination advisory
does not render the findings perverse. Article II, therefore, does not warrant
interference.
Natural justice
30. The procedural challenge is built around several planks: first, that
none of the listed prosecution witnesses were examined; second, that the
Inquiry Officer relied on written statements without affording an opportunity
of cross-examination; and third, that two internal office noting were
introduced though not part of the list of relied-upon documents.
31. A departmental inquiry is not a criminal trial and is not governed by
7
the strict rigours of the Evidence Act. The touchstone is fairness. Even so,
where the employer relies on oral assertions, disputed statements, or
testimonial material adverse to the employee, elementary fairness ordinarily
requires an opportunity to test that material, including by cross-examination
where the circumstances so warrant. In the present proceedings, the inquiry
is not whether the procedure could have been better, but whether the
departure, if any, has caused demonstrable prejudice and has thereby
8
impaired the fairness of the process.
32. The core of both Articles is documentary: issuance of the two letters
and the Petitioner’s competence to issue communications carrying their
institutional import. The foundational documents are the letters themselves.
Their existence is not in dispute. The authorship, on the record, is supported
by the forensic opinion, which the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
7
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491.
8
See also: State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 17 of 21
Authority have noticed.
33. In these circumstances, the non-examination of listed witnesses does
not, by itself, vitiate the inquiry. A delinquent employee cannot succeed
merely by pointing to the absence of oral evidence, unless it is demonstrated
that the finding rests substantially on untested oral assertions or
determinative statements, and that the Petitioner was thereby denied a
meaningful opportunity to rebut the case against him. As underscored by the
9
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Alok Kumar , a plea of breach of
natural justice in service disciplinary matters is not established by the
invocation of form or by pointing to a procedural lapse in the abstract.
Natural justice is not an unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial
10
cure-all ; its application depends upon the facts of each case, and prejudice
is the controlling consideration. Unless the alleged infraction has resulted in
real prejudice affecting the fairness of the inquiry or the ultimate decision,
interference is not warranted.
34. The Petitioner had full opportunity, after receiving the Inquiry Report,
to meet the challenge by pointing to the relevant delegation, circulars,
manuals, or contemporaneous practice, and to demonstrate that the station-
level officer was competent to issue such communications or that the
communications were, in truth, limited to routine factual information. The
record does not disclose an instance where the Petitioner sought the
summoning of a particular witness for cross-examination on a specific issue,
and the Inquiry Officer refused such request without reasons. The grievance
here is not of a denied request in the face of a clear insistence; it is, rather, a
9
(2010) 5 SCC 349.
10
1977 AIR 965.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 18 of 21
critique of the evidentiary route adopted.
35. As regards the two internal office noting, the rule is equally clear. A
disciplinary inquiry may look at internal records, but if a document is
introduced to the prejudice of the delinquent employee, fairness demands
that it be disclosed and an opportunity be given to explain or rebut it. On the
material before this Court, the two internal noting are not shown to have
supplied the sole foundation of guilt. The findings are traceable primarily to
the two communications, their language, their regulatory deployment, and
the Petitioner’s lack of demonstrated competence to issue them. In any
event, the Petitioner had the Inquiry Report, filed a detailed representation,
and had the opportunity to address all material relied upon by the authorities.
No specific prejudice, in the sense of a concrete defence foreclosed by the
introduction of the two office noting, has been established.
36. In these circumstances, the procedural objections do not cross the
threshold required to invalidate the inquiry.
Penalty
37. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed compulsory retirement with
retiral benefits, after accepting the Inquiry Officer’s findings on both
Articles and after considering the Petitioner’s post-inquiry representation.
The law on the scope of interference with punishment is settled. The choice
of penalty lies primarily within the disciplinary domain. A Writ Court does
not re-calibrate punishment as an appellate authority. Interference is
warranted only where the penalty is vitiated by illegality in the decision-
making process, or where it is so disproportionate to the misconduct proved
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 19 of 21
11
that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
38. Measured against that standard, the penalty imposed here does not
invite correction. The proved misconduct is not a routine lapse in office
procedure. It concerns issuance of communications, in a regulated aviation
setting, which carried institutional assurance and were capable of being
deployed by a private entity to secure regulatory advantage. The misconduct
stands compounded by the ancillary irregularity found on record, namely
absence of corresponding office copies and official dispatch records, which
undermines traceability and accountability in a safety-critical regulatory
framework. An employee who acts beyond authority, particularly in matters
that engage institutional trust and regulatory interface, commits serious
misconduct, even if the employee asserts bona fides and even if
12
demonstrable loss is not proved as a pre-condition.
39. The Petitioner held a position in Air Traffic Management. The
discipline expected in such functions is exacting because regulatory
communications are not mere correspondence. They speak for the
institution. Once the disciplinary authorities have found that the Petitioner
was not competent to issue communications of that character, imposition of
penalty of compulsory retirement with retiral benefits cannot be
characterised as an outrageously disproportionate. The Court, therefore,
declines to interfere with the penalty.
Conclusion
40. No jurisdictional infirmity is shown in the appellate decision-making.
11
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386;
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610.
12
See also: Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager & Ors. v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9
SCC 69; Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 20 of 21
Taken together, the findings on Article I and Article II do not suffer from
perversity or absence of evidence. The inquiry process does not disclose a
breach of natural justice causing prejudice. The penalty also falls within
permissible bounds. The writ petition, therefore, fails.
41. The present petition is accordingly dismissed, along with any pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 23, 2026
nk
SCC 364.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:02.02.2026
19:02:47
W.P.(C) 11490/2021 Page 21 of 21