Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6951 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Shiv Kumar Sharma
RESPONDENT:
D.G.M., Central Bank of India and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/2005
BENCH:
ARUN KUMAR & G.P. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P(C ) No.15343 of 2005)
ARUN KUMAR, J
By order dated 18th November, 2005 this court allowed the above
appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision of the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant in the High Court on merits. We hereby give
reasons for the aforesaid order.
The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Central Bank of India
on 12th May, 1981. He was placed under suspension in view of a criminal
case registered against him. Simultaneously a departmental enquiry was
held against the appellant. Enquiry report went against the appellant and a
2show cause notice dated 19th December, 1997 was issued proposing the
punishment of discharge from service. On 9th February, 1998 order was
issued confirming the punishment as proposed in the show cause notice.
The departmental remedies persued by the appellant against the said action
failed. Ultimately the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court on
24th May, 2003 challenging the said action against him. The said Writ
Petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy
vide impugned order dated 2nd September, 2004. The present appeal is
directed against the said order. We have perused the impugned order of the
High Court. Although on the question of availability of alternative remedy
the view of the High Court cannot be faulted, yet in the circumstances of the
present case, specially when such a long time has elapsed since the action of
suspension and thereafter discharge from service was taken against the
appellant, we feel that the appellant ought not to have been non-suited on
the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is settled law that
availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise of
jurisidiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by High Courts. The
long lapse of time since the appellant has been out of job persuades us not
to drive him to another round of litigation under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Interest of justice in the present case demands that the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant before the High Court be disposed of on merits.
Accordingly we direct the High Court to finally dispose of the Writ Petition
on merits in accordance with law. The impugned judgment of the High
Court is accordingly set aside.
27363