The existence of an alternative statutory remedy is a good ground for not entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) FROM the record it appears that the petitioner was suspended on 19. 4. 1990 on the charge of embezzlement. An F. I. R. was also lodged against him on the same charge under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 I. P. C. On 9. 2. 1991. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 6. 4. 1992. After suspension the petitioner was served with departmental charge sheet and additional charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer after receiving the reply of the petitioner submitted his report for removing him from service. The petitioner was also served with the charge sheet of the criminal case on 13. 4. 1991 in which same allegation and same charge as shown in the departmental charge sheet were given.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the respondent has already deducted the embezzled amount from the subsistence allowance of the petitioner. It is further alleged that he could not be removed from service being a permanent employee without conducting any enquiry under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is further contended that the petitioner can at the most be placed under suspension during the pendency of criminal trial but he cannot be removed from service but under Rule 49-A (1) (a) of the Civil Service Rules, 1930 the respondent has no power to remove the petitioner from service.

( 4 ) IN U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari Sangh (2004) 4 S. C. C. 268= 2005 A. I. R. S. C. W. 3149, the Honble Supreme Court has held: -

"17. . . Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurrer. Nevertheless, even when there has been such a delay where the issued raise requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case remained unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner, which is just and fair to both the parties. The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned Single Judge in Anand Prakash case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief. "

( 5 ) THE controversy in the present writ petition pertains to disputed questions of facts which require findings on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner has an alternate and expeditious statutory remedy before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which has not been exhausted by them.

( 6 ) IN L. L. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6 SCC-634, the apex court has held that the Courts or Tribunals having exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters, such remedy must be exhausted before intervention by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly in State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastics and Chemical Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC-216, the apex court has held that existence of alternative remedy would be a good ground for not entertaining the petition.

( 7 ) IN Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U. P. and Others Vs Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521, the apex court has held as under: -

"11. These appeals are preferred against the order made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. WP No. 47130 of 2000 etc. on 1-2-2001. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by the impugned judgment has held that the petitioner in the said writ petitions has an alternate remedy by way of petitions before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (the Tribunal), and had permitted the writ petitioner therein to approach the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to entertain any such petition to be filed by the writ petitioner without raising any objection as to limitation. There was a further direction to the Tribunal to de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document