Advocates:
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.D.SEKHRI, S.P.SINHA

Key Points: - The judgment discusses whether the Superior Court may issue certiorari to quash departmental orders even when an adequate statutory remedy (appeal/revision) exists. (!) (!) (!) - It addresses whether Article 226 can be applied to quash orders passed before the Constitution came into force, depending on whether finality occurred after the Constitution's commencement. (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that certiorari is not limited to cases without any alternative remedy, and that suppression of natural justice in departmental trials can justify Extraordinary relief. (!) (!) (!) - It discusses whether orders in departmental proceedings merge and the effect on rights and remedies, including finality and retroactivity concerns. (!) (!) - It emphasizes that the presiding officer in departmental trials must maintain impartiality and that personal involvement in evidence by a presiding officer can render proceedings void. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It asserts that upon proper circumstances, the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction to correct gross injustices even where there are other remedies, based on principles of natural justice. (!) (!)

What is the scope of the High Court's power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of departmental inquiries and prior remedies?

What are the conditions under which a writ of certiorari may be issued to correct errors in inferior departmental tribunals despite available appeals or revisions?

What governs the retroactive or prospective operation of Article 226 in cases where the underlying orders were issued before the Constitution came into force?