K. B. Asthana, J. - (1.) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of brother H. N. Seth who dismissed the writ of the appellant for directions in the nature of mandamus and certiorari. The appellant is a Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force and at the material time was posted in Allahabad under the Central Air Command. On 28-3-1970 instructions were issued from the Air Headquarters, New Delhi, to the effect that all personnel of the Air Force were required to wear crash helmet with effect from April 1 of the year while riding on two wheeled motorised vehicles. This Order became effective and applicable in the Central Air Command at Allahabad and all the Air Force personnel, including the petitioner appellant posted at Allahabad, were required to wear crash helmet while riding two wheeled motorised vehicles. Admittedly the petitioner appellant had a scooter and he used to ride on it while going on official duty and as well as when going out on private business. The petitioner appellant, as averred in this petition, felt that these instructions the observance of which was made compulsory, was obnoxious and he contended that the Air Force authorities had no power to regulate how he will use his scooter and what headgear he will put on while riding the scooter outside his duty hours. The petitioner appellant did not procure for himself a crash helmet and sometimes rode his scooter without wearing the crash helmet. As the counter-affidavit shows the was caught many times in the past riding his scooter without wearing a crash helmet and was warned. On 4-7-1973 the petitioner appellant was asked to explain his conduct in riding his scooter without wearing the crash helmet. The petitioner appellant submitted a written explanation, inter alia, stating that the warning regarding wearing a crash helmet issued to him earlier was not acceptable to him and the intimation of his unwillingness to obey the order was intimated to the Air Commanding Officer that he had stopped using the scooter from the date the warning was issued but it so happened that he found it difficult to carry on his duties without recourse to a vehicle, hence he again used his scooter but as the crash helmet was not available in the canteen or in the city of Allahabad, due to non-availability of it he could not wear it and that there was no intention on his part of disobeying any existing order and the lapse on his part in this regard was regretted and be condoned. The authorities, it appears, were not satisfied with this written explanation and called the petitioner appellant for interrogation and before the investigating Officer the petitioner appellant accepted the fact that he was riding the scooter on 4-7-1973 without wearing crash helmet. He also admitted that he was aware of the instructions for wearing the crash helmet. When asked why did he not wear a crash helmet while riding the scooter contrary to the existing instructions, the petitioner appellant, replied that due to urgency of the work he had faded to carry the crash helmet. The petitioner appellant further admitted before the investigating Officer that he had been previously warned for not obeying the instructions for wearing a crash helmet. The investigating officer also examined witnesses to establish the fact that the petitioner appellant was found riding a scooter without wearing crash helmet.
(2.) On a consideration of the material on record, the Commanding Officer passed the following orders on 27-7-1973 : "Reference is made to Headquarters Central Air Command. IAF Letter No. CAC/C/2708/245/P 1 dated 26 July, 19 73. 2. A formal investigation was held at this wing to investigate into the circumstances under which you were found riding a scooter without wearing crash helmet on 4th July, 1973. The investigating Officer found you to blame for not wearing crash helmet while riding a two-wheeled motor vehicle. 3. For this lapse, you, Squadron Leader G.N. Raju (7167) F (N) of No. 48 Squadron, Air Force, have incurred 'Displeasure' of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Central Air Command."
(3.) The petitioner appellant became apprehensive that the displeasure expressed by the Air Officer Commanding in-Chief of Central Air Command may entitle evil consequences and he being fortified by the warning of the Commanding Officer in his latter dated 7-7-1973 thought such lapse on the petitioner appellant's part would be reflected in his confidential report which fact has been accepted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, Before this Court the petitioner took the plea in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of order of the Commanding Officer, on the substantive ground that the instructions issued by the Air Headquarters for compulsorily wearing of crash helmet by the personnel of the Air Force while using and riding two-wheeled motorised vehicles were unauthorised and without jurisdiction and they not being Regulations under the Law, no Air Force Officer or other personnel could be penalised for disregarding such instructions. In the writ petition Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Air Command, Officer Commanding of the petitioners Command and the Chief of the Air Staff Air Headquarters. New Delhi, were impleaded as opposite parties. The stand taken by the opposite parties before the Court was that the instructions issued by the Air Headquarters under the authority of the Chief of the Air Staff were Regulations binding on the personnel of the Air Force, any breach and disobedience thereof would amount to breach of Regulations and would entail penalties according to the rules.;