Availability of alternate efficacious remedy before a specialized tribunal may preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner was working as a driver in the office of respondent no. 3. He was transferred and appointed to the office of respondent no. 2. Meanwhile, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him and by the impugned order dated 15.07.2021, respondent no. 1 awarded a major penalty of downgrading the pay-scale of the petitioner from Grade Pay Rs. 4200 to Grade Pay Rs. 2800. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by respondent no. 1.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry was conducted in a very arbitrary and illegal manner; the petitioner had replied to the authorities that on account of illness, the petitioner could not join his duties in the office; without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed; while passing the impugned order, the provision of Rule 7 of Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short, "2010 Rules") has been violated, because inquiry officer was appointed on 19.02.2021 and it is he, who served the chargesheet. It is the case that, in fact, it vitiates the impugned order and the proceedings.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The grounds to challenge the impugned order include violation of Rule 7 of 2010 Rules and the manner in which the inquiry was conducted.

5. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as to how and why, this petition should be entertained, which squarely relates to the service matter, in view of the existence of State Public Services Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), as created under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short, "the Act").

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition is maintainable before this Court. He would submit the following points in his arguments:

(I) Alternate remedy is not a bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(II) In the instant petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of 2010 Rules. In case of violation of statutory rules, it is not necessary for a party to approach the Tribunal.

(III) There is no factual dispute in the instant petition, therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Uday Pratap Singh v. Stat of Uttarakhand & others, (2012) 1 UD 365 and Ram Lal v. State of Uttarakhand & others,2015 2 UD 25.

8. In the case of Whirlpool (supra), paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment have been referred to, which are as under:-

"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited to any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proc