# Praveen Kumar v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 183
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61593 of 2006
- **Bench:** V.K. Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-kumar-v-union-of-india-and-others-40817
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226-aAlternative remedy-Air Force Act 1950,
Section-26 (2)(3) and (4) readwith Air
force Rules 1969 Rule 15 (2)(g)(ii)-
Discharge from duty-petitioner working
as Air Man-statutory remedy-to complain
before the chief of the air staff-against
that further remedy to revision before
central government-petition dismissed
on the ground of alternative remedy.

Held: Para 7

The claim of petitioner is that he has
been wronged by Air officer Incharge
Personnel, who is subordinate to the
Chief of the Air Staff. Once petitioner
submits that he has been wronged by an
officer of the level of Air Officer Incharge
Personnel, then petitioner has remedy in
terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 of
the Act to complain to the Chief of the
Air Staff, and in the event of receipt of
any such complaint Chief of the Air Staff
will make investigation for giving full
redress to the petitioner in terms of subsection (3) of Section 26, and if even
thereafter, petitioner is aggrieved then
there is further remedy of revision
before Central Government in terms of
sub-Section
(5)
of
Section

## Text

1 All] Praveen Kumar V. Union of India and others
183
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61593 of 2006

Praveen Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Yadav
Sri Lalji Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashank Shekhar
Sri Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Solicitor General
of India

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226-aAlternative remedy-Air Force Act 1950,
Section-26 (2)(3) and (4) readwith Air
force Rules 1969 Rule 15 (2)(g)(ii)-
Discharge from duty-petitioner working
as Air Man-statutory remedy-to complain
before the chief of the air staff-against
that further remedy to revision before
central government-petition dismissed
on the ground of alternative remedy.

Held: Para 7

The claim of petitioner is that he has
been wronged by Air officer Incharge
Personnel, who is subordinate to the
Chief of the Air Staff. Once petitioner
submits that he has been wronged by an
officer of the level of Air Officer Incharge
Personnel, then petitioner has remedy in
terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 of
the Act to complain to the Chief of the
Air Staff, and in the event of receipt of
any such complaint Chief of the Air Staff
will make investigation for giving full
redress to the petitioner in terms of subsection (3) of Section 26, and if even
thereafter, petitioner is aggrieved then
there is further remedy of revision
before Central Government in terms of
sub-Section
(5)
of
Section
26.
Consequently,
equally
efficacious
remedy is there.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. Petitioner had been performing
and discharging duties as Airman with the
Indian Air Force. Proceedings were
undertaken against him and court of
inquiry was conducted. Thereafter show
cause notice dated 22.12.2005 was served
on the petitioner on 11.01.2006 to show
cause as to why petitioner may not be
discharged from service under Rule 15 (2)
(g) (ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 for
his alleged misconduct as brought out on
court of enquiry. Petitioner submitted his
reply on 25.05.2006 to the said show
cause notice and thereafter in exercise of
power under Section 22 of the Air Force
Act, 1950 read with Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of
the Air Force Rules, 1969 order of
discharge was passed on 09.11.2006 and
the said order was served on petitioner on
10.11.2006.

2. Petitioner has approached this
Court questioning the validity of the
aforementioned two actions directing his
discharge and issuance of discharge
certificate.

3. At the point of time when matter
has been taken up, Sri Shashank Shekhar,
learned counsel representing respondents,
contended with vehemence that present
writ petition is not maintainable, as the
petitioner has got equally efficacious
remedy of approaching the Chief of the
Air Staff under Section 26 of the Air
Force Act, 1950, as such writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
4. Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel
for the petitioner, on the other hand
contended that Section 26 of the aforesaid
Act is not applicable and attracted in the
matter of discharge and as such petitioner
cannot be relegated to the said alternative
remedy.

5. After respective arguments have
been advanced, Section 26 of the Act
dealing with the remedy of aggrieved
airman is to be looked into, which is
being quoted below:

"26. Remedy of aggrieved airmen.-
(1) Any airman who deems himself
wronged by any superior or other officer
may, if not attached to a unit or
detachment, complain to the officer under
whose command or orders he is serving;
and may, if attached to a unit of
detachment complaint to the officer
commanding the same.
(2) When the officer complained against
his officer to whom any complaint should,
under sub-section (1), be preferred, the
aggrieve airman may complain to such
officer's next superior officer, and if he
thinks himself wronged by such superior
officer, he may complain to the Chief of
the Air Staff.
(3) Every Officer receiving any such
complaint shall make as complete an
investigation into it as may be possible for
giving full redress to the complainant; or
when necessary, refer the complaint to
superior authority.
(4) Every such complaint shall be
preferred in such manner as may from
time to time be specified by the proper
authority.
(5) The Central Government may revise
any decision by the Chief of the Air Staff
under sub-Section (2) but subject thereto,
the decision of the Chief of the Air Staff
shall be final."

6. A bare perusal of Section 26 of
the Act would go to show that any airman
who deems himself wronged by any
superior or other officer, if not attached to
a unit or detachment, has been given a
right
to
complain
to
the
officer
commanding the same. It has also been
provided that if he is attached to a unit of
detachment then he can complain to the
officer commanding the same. Subsection (2) of Section 26 further provides
that when the officer complained against
his officer to whom any complaint should
be preferred under sub-section (1), the
aggrieve airman may complain to such
officer's next superior officer, and if he
thinks himself wronged by such superior
officer, he may complain to the Chief of
the Air Staff. Sub-section (3) of Section
26, on receipt of any such complaint,
obligates the officer to make a complete
investigation into it as may be possible for
giving full redress to the complainant, and
in case it is not feasible, the said officer
has authority to refer the complaint to
superior authority. Sub-section (4) of
Section 26 provides the format in which
complaint is to be preferred. Sub-section
(5) of Section 26 provides for giving
finality to the order of the Chief of the Air
Staff, but even the said finality is subject
to power of revision, which can be
exercised by the Central Government.

7. Section 26 of Air Force Act, 1950
is
specific
and
comprehensive
qua
aggrieved airman and same is self
contained, and whenever any airman
deems himself ti have been wronged, he
has been given liberty to approach the
authority concerned. The language of the
Section imports in itself widest amplitude,
1 All] Smt. Rajni Chauhan and another V. Smt. Saroj Singh
185
as it gives an opportunity to the Airman,
whenever he thinks that he has been
wronged, to approach the authority.
Section 26 is not only comprehensive but
it also obligates the authority concerned
of making investigation for giving full
redress to the complainant. In the present
case order of discharge has been passed
against petitioner and pursuant to the
same discharge certificate has been
issued. The claim of petitioner is that he
has been wronged by Air officer Incharge
Personnel, who is subordinate to the Chief
of the Air Staff. Once petitioner submits
that he has been wronged by an officer of
the
level
of
Air
Officer
Incharge
Personnel, then petitioner has remedy in
terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 of
the Act to complain to the Chief of the
Air Staff, and in the event of receipt of
any such complaint Chief of the Air Staff
will make investigation for giving full
redress to the petitioner in terms of subsection (3) of Section 26, and if even
thereafter, petitioner is aggrieved then
there is further remedy of revision before
Central Government in terms of subSection (5) of Section 26. Consequently,
equally efficacious remedy is there.

8. It has been next contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the present case order has been passed by
Air Head Quarter, New Delhi, and as such
it should be presumed that the order has
been passed by the Chief of the Air Staff,
as such relegation of petitioner to the
Chief of Air Staff would be redundant
exercise. This is clearly misconception on
the part of petitioner, inasmuch as in the
present case order has been passed by Air
Officer Incharge Personnel posted at Air
Head Quarter, New Delhi, and he cannot
be equated with the Chief of the Air Staff,
who holds a unique position under
Section 4 (xiv) of the Air Force Act,
1950.

9. Consequently, petitioner has got
equally efficacious remedy under Section
26 of the said Act, as such present writ
petition is dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Revision No. 76 of 2006

Smt. Rajni Chauhan & another ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Saroj Singh

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Prabhat Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 40 rule 5Review-scope thereof explained-striking
out
defence-review
on
the
ground
counsel not advised-held-can not be
ground for review-unless discovery of
new facts or the error apparent on the
fact of record.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, .J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist.

This revision challenges the order
dated 17.10.2006 passed by the court
below dismissing the review petition of
the revisionist.

2. A suit for eviction of the
revisionist was filed by the opposite-party