A charge-memo is not liable to be quashed during the pendency of the departmental enquiry unless issued by an authority lacking competence or jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

CM APPLs. 39713 & 39714/2019 (exemptions)

1. Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9623/2019

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under for quashing the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. Counsel for the respondents enters appearance on an advance copy.

5. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

6. The necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Air Worthiness Officer in the Civil Aviation Department in August,1994. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Air Safety in the year 2010. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred from Delhi Region to Mumbai (Western Region) as Deputy Director, Air Safety. As required under the norms of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), since the petitioner's son intended to learn flying, the petitioner vide a letter dated 11.07.2014, intimated that his son was intending to learn flying from Pioneer Flying Academy, Aligarh (U.P.) and that the flying club would come under his jurisdiction.

7. Subsequently, he informed DGCA vide communication dated 03.11.2014, that his son had not been pursuing flying lessons from Pioneer Flying Academy, and had instead joined Nagpur Flying Club, which was a State Government Flying Club. In the said communication, the petitioner clearly stated that he has no official dealing with the club.

8. Since the DGCA found the information provided by the petitioner to be incomplete and vague, and no reasons thereto assigned for switching of training academies, the details as to how the flying training was being financed were sought from the petitioner, vide DGCA communication dated 31.12.2014.

9. Subsequently, the petitioner vide his communication dated 28.02.2016 further intimated that since Nagpur Flying Club was non-operational, his son had decided to join the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal. In his communication, he failed to mention that the said club fell under his jurisdiction i.e. the Mumbai office. Whereas, in his previous letter dated 03.11.2014, the petitioner had clearly mentioned that he had no official dealings with Nagpur Flying Club.

10. The petitioner, informed vide his communication dated 03.06.2016, that his son had completed the flying training and obtained CPL from DGCA on 02.06.2016. He further informed vide communication dated 15.06.2016 that his son had joined the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal for Multi Engine Training.

11. During the period when the petitioner's son had joined the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal for Multi Engine Training, the petitioner was posted in the Western Region, DGCA as Deputy Director (Air Safety) and as per the work allocation order dated 30.03.2016, the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal was under his jurisdiction from 30.03.2016 to 20.06.2016.

12. Accordingly, the petitioner vide memoranda dated 30.10.2018 and 19.11.2018, was requested to clarify his position with regard to allocation and continuance of holding of charge of the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal during the training of his son in that institute.

13. The statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of Article of Charges enclosed alongwith the memorandum dated 26.04.2019 against the petitioner clearly state that the communication sent by the petitioner dated 08.11.2018,22.11.2018 as well as the correspondence dated 22.11.2017 received from O/o DDG (WR), Mumbai were examined and it was observed that the petitioner was looking after the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club relating to Air Safety and was in a position to influence the admission process of his son, which was under his jurisdiction during the said period of time. It was observed that it was a clear case of conflict of interest and the petitioner deliberately concealed