( 1 ) BY WAY OF THE PRESENT PETITION, PETITIONER PRAYS that MANDAMUS BE ISSUED QUASHING THE REPORTS SUBMITTED BY the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE ON 6. 4. 2001 AND 14. 6. 2001. MANDAMUS IS ALSO SOUGHT FOR QUASHING ORDER DATED 15. 12. 2001, BY WHICH ORDER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, considering THE REPORT DATED 14. 6. 2001 AND AGREEING WITH the FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE IMPOSED the PUNISHMENT OF reduction OF BASIC PAY TO THE minimum IN THE GRADE WITHOUT RESTORATION UNDER THE provisions OF AIR INDIA EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS. QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 23/29. 4. 2002 PASSED BY THE appellate AUTHORITY REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE petitioner AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY authority HAS ALSO BEEN PRAYED FOR. FURTHER ORDER SOUGHT to BE QUASHED IS ORDER DATED 12/20. 11. 2002 DISMISSING another APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY and DIRECTOR CORPORATION AFFAIRS. QUASHING OF THE LETTER dated 20/26. 12. 2002 IS ALSO PRAYED FOR. BY SAID LETTER petitioner WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE PETITIONER WAS grounded AS A RESULT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PENDING against HIM, HE DID NOT HAVE ACTIVE FLYING DUTIES FOR 150 DAYS. GRIEVANCE IS THAT PETITIONER s FLYING TRAINING was DELAYED DUE TO THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE the ENQUIRY WAS TO BE QUASHED, PETITIONER s GROUNDING must BE HELD TO BE INVALID AND AS A RESULT LETTER DATED 20/26. 12. 2002 BE QUASHED.

( 2 ) MR. HUZEFA AHMEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE petitioner, DURING ARGUMENTS LAUNCHED A THREE PRONGED attack WHICH REQUIRES TO BE NOTED AT THE INCEPTION FOR the REASON, I WOULD BE REFERRING TO ONLY SUCH RECORD AS relates ITSELF TO THE CHALLENGE LAID.

( 3 ) THREE-FOLD CHALLENGE WAS :-

(A) ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED IN A CASUAL MANNER resulting IN DENIAL OF EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF DEFENCE. PURITY OF RECORD WAS NOT MAINTAINED AT THE ENQUIRY.

(B) ENQUIRY REPORT IS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and THEREFORE NOT ONLY THE ENQUIRY BUT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL orders REQUIRE TO BE QUASHED, AND;

(C) PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE VIOLATED.

( 4 ) MR. HUZEFA AHMEDI CONTENDED THAT SINGULARLY AND cumulatively, EACH OF THE THREE CHALLENGE TO THE ACTION of THE RESPONDENTS WAS ENOUGH TO DESTROY THE ENQUIRY, ITS report AND THE ORDERS PASSED PURSUANT THERETO. IT WAS also INDICATIVE OF THE MALA FIDE ATTITUDE ADOPTED BY THE respondents TOWARDS THE PETITIONER CONTENDED THE COUNSEL.

( 5 ) EVENTS GO BACK TO AUGUST, 2000. PETITIONER, along WITH A GROUP OF PILOTS INCLUDING CAPT. M. S. SANDHU and capt. H. P. S. KHALON WERE SENT TO LONDON FOR STIMULATOR training. THE ENTIRE CONTINGENT WAS PUT UP AT HOTEL holiday INN. ON 25. 8. 2000, PETITIONER WAS, AT THE ASKING of THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL HOLIDAY INN SHIFTED TO hotel JARVIS. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER IT WAS THE result OF RACIAL BIAS, IN AS MUCH AS PETITIONER HAD MADE complaints TO THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE ATTITUDE of THE SERVICE PERSONNEL. AS WOULD BE NOTED FROM THE charge AGAINST THE PETITIONER, HE WAS SHIFTED AS HE HAD acted IN A MANNER WITH CERTAIN LADY EMPLOYEES, WHICH ACTS amounted TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. ON RETURN TO INDIA, petitioner WAS ADDRESSED A COMMUNICATION IN WHICH IT WAS pointed OUT THAT IT WAS REPORTED TO THE MANAGEMENT THAT during PETITIONER s ASSIGNMENT IN LONDON HE HAD SHOWN undue FAMILIARITY TOWARDS SOME OF THE LADIES STAFF AT the HOTEL TO THE POINT OF CAUSING THEM ANNOYANCE, AS A result WHEREOF, THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT WAS CONSTRAINED TO shift PETITIONER TO ANOTHER HOTEL. PETITIONER WAS required TO SUBMIT AN EXPLANATION OF HIS CONDUCT, WITHIN 3 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE LETTER.

( 6 ) PETITIONER RESPONDED ON 5. 9. 2000. HE DENIED THE allegations. HE STATED THAT THERE WERE SHORTCOMINGS IN the FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE HOTEL SUCH AS refrigeration AND AIR CONDITIONING WHICH HE HAD BROUGHT to THE NOTICE OF THE FRONT DESK MANAGER AND SALES manager, BOTH LADIES. HE ALSO STATED IN HIS LETTER THAT he BROUGHT TO THEIR NOTICE THE ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR OF the STAFF OF THE HOTE