JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---This petition invokes the writ jurisdiction to quash a “ no flying” order and to restore all benefits of which the petitioner has been deprived as a consequence thereof.

2. Respondent No. 2, the Union of India, owns and operates the 1st respondent which shall hereinafter be referred to as ' the Air India' or ' Corporation'. Petitioner is a pilot who served the Indian Air Force from 1962 to 1976 and for distinguished service received the Vayu Sena Medal in 1971. In 1976 he joined the Air India and until mid 1984 underwent the usual progression. Come June 1984 and the entry of the Army into the Golden Temple on 6th June, 1984. Agitated by this entry, the petitioner addressed a letter on 10th June, 1984 to the Dadar Gurudwara Prabhandak Samiti to forward his protest and the return of the Vayu Sena Medal to the Governor of Maharashtra. The letter emphasised petitioner's not being actuated by political considerations and his aversion to the protest being actuated by political considerations and his aversion to the protest being publicised. The caution notwithstanding, the protest found its way into the press. Four days later i.e. on 14 June, 1984, there was a discussion between him and the Deputy Director of the Training Department in regard to the press report. Two months after this conference, petitioner addressed a letter to the said Deputy Director as a follow-on to the discussion. In this letter he spoke of the protest routed through the Samiti as “done on the spur and in the heat of the moment”, the factual non-return of the medal and his respect therefore and lastly his not being associated with “any religious group or organisation”. In the first week of November 1948 on 5 November, 1981 the Operations Manager, Training informed the petitioner of the receipt of some communication casting doubts on his loyalty to the nation and the Corporation. Ten days later, petitioner refuted the insinuations in a written clarification to the Deputy Director and re-affirmed his loyalty. He was on conversion training to Air bus 310 as from 3 August, 1986 to 6 April, 1987. This involved flying duties, but as a trainee. That interlude apart, petitioner has not been given flying duties as from 7 November, 1984. Numerous representations to the authorities including, the minister not having yielded a result, petitioner on 29 August, 1987 lodged the petition, occasioning this judgment.

3. The 'no flying' disability and its consequences in terms of monetary and non-monetary deprivations are assailed on various grounds. As a pilot, petitioner was engaged to fly aircrafts and he had a right to perform this task. The protest letter of 6 June, 1984 was innocuous and had been retracted. What occurred later was a mystery. The decision was arbitrary, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional. It be quashed and petitioner duly restituted for the losses sustained. The stand of the Corporation and Union of India through their returns made at different stages may be summarised thus. Petitioner's letters dated 10th June, 1984 and 14th August, 1984 showed the hold of raw emotions on his mind. A mind so buffeted could not be trusted to fly planes of a Corporation which functioned in a highly competitive milieu. The environment was a risky one and the presence of an emotionally upset employee in the cockpit could work havoc which the clientele. Reports had come to the ears of the authorities of petitioner's display of disbelief in the contents of a booklet explaining Government's compulsions for staging Operation Bluestar. This showed that protestations notwithstanding, petitioner was not truly reconciled. Security considerations had led the Government to direct Air India to ground petitioner. This direction was not a suspension within the meaning of regulations framed under section 45 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 (A.C. Act). It fell under section 34 of the said Act. The said direction was jus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document