JUDGMENT 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.
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. Sub-section (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, 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 Sub-section (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.
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.