The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, an aggrieved party must avail that remedy for redressal of grievance, and the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to consider questions of fact and law, including jurisdiction, authority, non-observance of procedure, and non-observance of principles of natural justice.

SANTOSH BORA, J, :- Heard counsel for respective parties.

2. Rule. By consent of learned counsel for parties, Rule is made returnable fOI1hwith.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner prays far quashing and setting aside order of dismissal dt. 1-6-2007, passed by the Superintendent, Gurudwara Saehkhand Board, Nanded, whereby, petitioner has been dismissed from serviee of Takhat Saebkband Sri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded.

Facts giving rise to this petition may be statcd as under:-

4. Admittedly, petitioner - Sardar Bhimsingh Uttamsingh Pujari jOll1ed services of Takhat Saehkhand Sri Hazur Apehalnagar Sahib, Nanded, in the year 1977, as a Clerk. On 12-8-2004, be was placed under suspension by respondent No.2. The order of suspension was passed in the wake of contemplated disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct.

It is not in dispute that, Junior Assistant Superintendent (Mr. Ranjeetsingh Daleepsingh Chiragiya) was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry. Petitioner was found guilty in respect of three charges. On 15-5-2007, respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause Notice calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.

1st charge pertains to conduct of petitioner in abusing staff members, misbehavior and threats to take police action, etc.

2nd charge pertains to action of cutting of threes in the premises of Gurudwara Banda Ghat Sahib, Nanded.

3rd charge pertains to disobedience of the order directing petitioner to vacate quarter occupied by him.

Enquiry report disclosed that, in all eight charges were levelled against petitioner. Gurudwara Board examined in all nine witnesses in order to prove the charges so levelled.

On 22-5-2007, petitioner offered explanation in writing. He denied the charges. It was, inter alia, contended that, no such incident, as alleged, has ever occurred and allegations were made at the behest of the office bearers of Gurudwara Board. So far as notice of vacating quarter is concerned, it was submitted that, petitioner had approached Civil Court, obtained an interim injunction and ultimately, said suit was dismissed on technical ground and thereafter, he filed appeal in the District Court, which is pending. It is submitted that, petitioner is innocent. He has a family, which consists of three daughters and two sons. Having regard to his long standing service of more than 30 years, proposed punishment i.e. dismissal from service is uncalld for.

5. Be that as it may, on 1-6-2007 dismissal order came to be passed. It is admitted fact that, on 10-7-2007, petitioner has filed appeal before appellate authority as per Chapter V of the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956 (hereinatler referred to as the Act of 1956, for the sake of brevity). A copy of appeal memo is annexed with petition. Appeal memo shows that petitioner has already set the statutory appellate remedy in motion by filing the said appeal, thereby, raising questions of facts as well as law, praying to quash and set aside the order of dismissal passed on 1-6-2007.

6. Despite of pendency of the appeal, petitioner has approached this Court by instant petition on 29-10-2007 praying for quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal passed on 1-6-2007, raising number of grounds, mainly contending that, punishment is shockingly disproportionate, mandatory procedure was not followed, there was violation of principles of natural justice, the Board did not have power to take such action, and the order runs contra to provisions of the Act of 1956, as also, Rules of 1958 and bye-laws so made.

7. Initially, this Court issued order of Notice Before Admission to the' respondents and they appeared through Adv. Mr. Amol Gandhi.

8. Shri Pravin Mandlik, ld. Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection for entertaining this petition on the ground that