Rajendra Singh vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri K. N. Mishra, counsel for the Petitioner, Sri V. K. Singh, counsel for the Respondents and perused the record.

Case of the Petitioner is that while he was working as driver in the Respondent-Corporation, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry vide order dated 8.1.2003. After conclusion of enquiry, he was served with a show cause notice dated 2.8.2003 to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was submitted on 19.8.2003. Thereafter, he has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.11.2005. Statutory appeal of the Petitioner has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 19.8.2006.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2005 and rejection of appeal dated 19.8.2006, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

The questions of facts involved in this writ petition require adjudication of facts by appraisal of documentary and oral evidence. It is not feasible for the High Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution and adjudicate by stepping into the shoes of a labour court/Industrial Tribunal. These forums have been created with specific object to deal with such matters requiring findings of facts. The questions as to whether order of dismissal and order of rejection of his statutory appeal are erroneous or not, are mixed questions of fact and law which can be decided only after consideration of oral and documentary evidence which may be led by the parties before the labour court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be.

It is the consistent view of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and Another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union, and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.

The Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the labour court/Industrial Tribunal, as held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and Ors. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 898: 1991 (2) AWC 1005.

For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution as it requires findings of facts to be recorded on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.