The High Court can entertain a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy if the order is arbitrary or unjust, emphasizing the need for fairness in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-17) whereby respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 6.5 Lakh from the gratuity of the petitioner and further reduced pension by 10% for two years commencing from 01.07.2023.

2. The petitioner joined respondent No. 2-National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali on 10.05.1996 and he served the said institute upto 30.04.2020. The petitioner was posted as Garden Supervisor in the department of Industrial Products and in January' 2019 he was assigned additional charge of Registrar though he was neither eligible for appointment on the said post nor he was having any knowledge of administration. The date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30.04.2020 and respondent No. 2, on 15.02.2020, in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 served charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 01.06.2023 has partially held the petitioner guilty of charges levelled in the charge-sheet. The petitioner was subjected to following punishments:-

i) Recovery of a sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh from the gratuity payable to the petitioner:

ii) Reduction of 10% of pension for two years under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been held guilty and penalty has been imposed for making payment to a lawyer who was engaged with respect to litigation between Chairman and Director of the Institute. The fee bill was approved by Director and petitioner at that point of time was posted as officiating Registrar. The petitioner was not part of the litigation. The lawyer was not engaged by the petitioner and he had simply cleared fee bill of the lawyer which was approved by Director.

4. The respondent No. 2 in the reply has primarily disputed maintainability of the present petition on the ground that petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before Appellate Authority as prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964.

5. Mr. Arun Gosain, counsel for respondents submits that proper enquiry was conducted and petitioner was found guilty, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner has not preferred appeal before Appellate Authority, thus, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner, KVS and others v. Hussain, AIR 2014 SC 766.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. The prime objection of the respondents is that impugned order is an appealable order. It is settled proposition of law that there is no absolute bar to entertain writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal. If the Court finds that there is prime facie illegality or action of authority is arbitrary, there is no restriction to entertain writ petition.

8. Justice K. Subba Rao in his lectures compiled in a book titled 'Some Constitutional Problems', critically analysing the trends of Indian constitutional development has opined that if courts instead of limiting the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercise their jurisdiction in appropriate cases, arbitrariness of the authorities will be minimised. The opinion of Justice K. Subba Rao as noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1, is reproduced as below:-

"If the courts, instead of limiting the scope of the articles by construction, exercise their jurisdiction in appropriate cases, I have no doubt that the arbitrariness of the authorities will be minimised. If these authorities entrusted with the discretionary powers, realise that their illegal orders infringing the rights of the people would be quashed by the appropriate authority, they would rarely pass orders in excess of their po