JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the special appeal (writ) and the order/judgment dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the appellant.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent–writ petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) with the appellant–Corporation and was posted at the Kota Depot under the supervision of the Depot Manager. During the course of a special audit conducted on 11.08.2000, certain financial irregularities and discrepancies were allegedly noticed in the functioning of the depot. On the basis of the said audit report, the respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges pertaining to alleged irregularities in issuance of challans, debit and credit notes, maintenance of accounts and other related matters.

2.1. The respondent submitted his reply denying the allegations and contended that he had no independent charge of the depot and was merely performing duties under the instructions and supervision of the Depot Manager. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges to be proved. Acting upon the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent also came to be rejected vide order dated 01.02.2005.

2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5031/2005 before the hon’ble Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.12.2019, whereby the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order were quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant–Corporation has preferred the present Special Appeal (Writ).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Corporation submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent, while working as a Junior Assistant/Lower Division Clerk, was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges, which were of serious nature relating to financial irregularities noticed during a special audit conducted at the Kota Depot. It was submitted that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1974, and after affording full opportunity of hearing and defence to the respondent, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. Acting upon the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.02.2005.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore the writ petition itself was not maintainable. It was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition without considering the preliminary objection raised by the appellant in this regard. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.  AIR 2005 SC 3936, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa,  (2009) 4 SCC 299 and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana,  (1985) 3