In wake of Air India’s decision banning pee-gate accused Shankar Mishra from flying for four months on the basis of the internal committee’s report, his legal counsel have opposed findings of the committee and are ready to file an appeal.
“We respect the authority and mandate of the Internal Inquiry Committee, but we disagree with their findings and are already in the process of appealing this decision in accordance with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s Civil Aviation Requirements for Unruly Passengers,” Mishra’s lawyers said.
Mishra is accused of relieving himself on an elderly woman co-passenger while in a drunken state.
Aviation regulator DGCA has imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh on Air India and suspended the license of pilot-in-command for three months in connection with the Air India urination case.
Moreover, the regulator has also imposed a penalty of Rs 3 lakh on Director, inflight services of Air India for failing to discharge her duties on November 26, 2022.
The development in the case came a day after the airline banned the alleged accused Mishra for four months on the basis of a report by the internal committee.
The incident of passenger misbehaviour which occurred on AI-102 flight from New York to New Delhi, came to the notice of DGC on January 4.
After Mishra claimed that the complainant had soiled her own seat, the latter on Saturday rubbished the allegation saying that it was “completely false and concocted”.
“The said allegation is also in complete contradiction and a complete volte-face of the statements and the pleaded case of the accused in his bail application,” she said.
Mishra’s claim came after a sessions court issued a notice on an application by the Delhi Police requesting his custody.The victim said that her intention has all along been of ensuring that institutional changes are made so that no individual has to go through the “horrendous experience” she went through.
“Instead of being remorseful for the utterly disgusting act committed by him, he has adopted a campaign of spreading misinformation and falsities with the intent of further harassing the victim,” she further said.
On January 13, Mishra told the court that he is not the accused. “There must be someone else who peed or it must be her who urinated,” he had said.
He further claimed that the woman was suffering from some prostate-related disease. “Her seat was such that it could only be accessed from behind and in any case, the urine could not reach the seat’s front area. Also, the person sitting behind the complainant did not make any such complaint,” he had said.