2009(7) Supreme 229
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Satwati Deswal — Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. — Respondents
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP)No.11917 of 2007]
Decided on : 06-11-2009
AIR 1961 SC 1506; AIR 2006 SC 975; AIR 2007 SC 3153 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – In the event of termination in violation of prescribed procedure, High Court has the discretionary power to interfere under Writ jurisdiction. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable on ground of alternative remedy of appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment and final order dated 17th of May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 7460 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of maintainability and relegated the appellant to take statutory remedy of appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as the other materials on record.
4. In our view, this appeal must succeed on a very short point. Before we take up the ground on which this appeal should be allowed, we may state the relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, which are as follows :-
The appellant [M.A. B.Ed. M.Sc (Computer)] was appointed as a lecturer in 2003 in a recognized school in the State of Haryana and was subsequently promoted to the post of Principal on account of her seniority. Her appointment and promotion were duly approved by the concerned authorities, but by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 11th of September, 2006, her services were terminated by the Manager of the School, namely, the respondent No.5 herein. Admittedly, in this case, no show-cause notice was issued to her nor the order of termination was passed by initiating any departmental proceeding after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. This order of termination was challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by it on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy to file an appeal under the rules before the appellate authority against the order of termination.
5. In our view, the High Court had fallen in grave error in rejecting the writ petition on the aforesaid ground. First, such an order of termination was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the appellant and without initiating any disciplinary proceedings by the authorities and without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is well settled that a writ petition can be held to be maintainable even if an alternative remedy available to an aggrieved party where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right; or if there had been a violation of a principle of natural justice; or where vires of the act were in question.
6. The aforesaid exceptions recognized by this Court were taken note of by this Court in the case of A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr.1 (AIR 1961 SC 1506), in which the Constitution Bench laid down the principles of the above exceptions when writ application could be entertained even if an alternative remedy was available to an aggrieved party. The same view was expressed by this Court in the case of L.K. Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd.& Anr.2 (AIR 2006 SC 975) and M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan Khan,3 (AIR 2007 SC 3153).
7. Such being the position and in view of the admitted fact in this case that before termination of the services of the appellant, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. It is clear from the record that the order of termination was passed without initiating any disciplinary proceedings and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the writ petition was maintainable in law and the High Court was in error in holding that in view of availability of alternative remedy to challenge the order of termination, the writ petition was not maintainable in law.
8. Apart from that, on a cursory look of the statutory provision of the Constitution of the Parishad Working Committees, it would be clear that before imposing any major penalty against an employee, namely, an order of termination of service, an inquiry must be held in the man
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.