The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was working as Asstt. Clerk in Bhatni unit of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd, in district Deoria.

3. On account of planned thefts of goods approximately amounting to Rs. 2.23 lacs during the period 20th July 2004 to 26th July 2004 by employees working in the store room of the Bhatni unit of the respondent-Corporation, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.7.2004 at Police Station Bhatni, district Deoria.

4. A domestic enquiry was also conducted against eight employees of the store including the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 13.8.2004 to the General Manager. In the enquiry report, it was found that after closure of the crussing season, brass items etc., were got stored in the store room, which fact was verified by the then Chief Engineer and that as the theft in the stores was in a planned manner, which could not have been possible without the connivance of the employees including Sri Haq the petitioner. It was further found in the report that in the entire circumstances, involvement of Sri Amit Kumar Das, the Store Incharge, Sri Haq, the petitioner, Peons, namely Sri Munni Lal, Mumtaz and Bhanu Pratap Singh who were responsible for keeping lock and key of the store cannot be ruled out.

5. The enquiry officer also found that on consideration of the statements of employees of the Store room, that all employees who were posted in the Store room fall within the zone of suspicion as second key was within the knowledge of everyone. Sri Amit Kumar Das who was store incharge used to maintain lock and key. Despite sealed lock and protected walls and roof, theft was committed for which Sri Das was mainly the responsible person as the second key was found in the drawer without locked and this was known to everyone. This shows their carelessness. Sri Haq, the petitioner has himself admitted that in the absence of Sri Das, he was fully responsible for locking and opening the lock as well as to get brought the keys from residence. The first information regarding theft was given by him when he opened the store for delivery of some goods. The lock and key were stolen at that very point of time and its theft raises a doubt.

6. After considering the report, the General Manager passed the following order in respect of the petitioner:-

^^esjs }kjk tk¡p ls lEcfU/kr lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dk xgurk ls ifj'khyu fd;k x;k rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh }s; dh tk¡p vk[;k dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k x;k A

eSa tk¡p ds lEcU/k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls lUrq"V gw¡ fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh }s; }kjk lHkh lEcfU/kr vkjksfir deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk dFku izLrqr djusa ,oa lk{;ksa dk ijh{k.k @ izfrijh{k.k djus dk iw.kZ volj iznku fd;k x;k A blds lkFk gh esjs }kjk Hkh tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds lanHkZ esa vfUre fu.kZ; ysusa ds iwoZ vkjksfir deZpkfj;ksa dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;s A bl izdkj leLr tk¡p dk;Zokgh fof/k leer <ax ls iw.kZ dh xbZ A

LVksj ls pksjh x;s ihry ds lkekuksa ds lEcU/k esa Hkh ih-,u-flag iz- eq[; vfHk;Urk ,oa orZeku LVksj izHkkjh ls izkIr fooj.k ds vuqlkj fey esa ihry vkfn egaxs lkeku [kksydj LVksj ls fey cUnh ds dqN dh fnuksa ipk;r dbZ frfFk;ksa esa tek djk;s x;s A izkIr fooj.k ds vuqlkj LVksj esa lkeku tek djusa dh frfFk ,oa LVksj esa dke djusa okyksa dk laf{kIr fooj.k fuEuor gS%&

Ø-la-	uke	inuke	lkeku tek djkus dh frfFk
1-	Jh vferdqekj nkl	izHkkjh LVksj	22&3&2004
2-	larks"k dqekj oekZ	lg- LVksjdhij	12&3&04]25&3&04 ,oa 12&4&04
3-	fodkl dqekj	fyfid
4-	t; izdkl nqcs	fyfid	17&3&2004 ,oa 20&7&2004

tk¡p vk[;k ,oa tk¡p ls lacf/kr vfHkys[kksa] vkjksfir deZpkfj;ksa ds vius cpko esa fn;s x;s c;ku ,oa Li"Vhdj.k ds ifj'khyu ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk gw¡ fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh }s; }kjk tk¡p dk;Zokgh ;/kfi fof/k lEer <ax ls iw.kZ dh xbZ gS rFkkfi viuk fu"d"kZ nsus esa