Ramesh Chandra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the relief of setting aside the suspension order dated 04/11/2008 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2-Director of Schools Education, Uttarakhand and further to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit as per his status in service had it been the impugned suspension order was ever passed.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey v. State passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S) and Nand Ballabh Pant v. State passed in Writ petition No. 257 of 2005 (S/B), the petitioner has other alternative efficacious relief available before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suspension order passed by the respondents is patently illegal, as such, this Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Public Services Tribunal has no power to grant the interim relief, mainly to stay the operation of the suspension order. As such, this petition can be entertained by this Court.

In the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Another, , the validity of the Public Services Tribunal Act was challenged before the Court. While holding the validity of the said Act, the Hon�ble Apex Court has held in para 38 as under:

From the abovementioned decisions, it is evident that this Court has consistently been of the view that by way of an interim order the order of suspension, termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in the court.

Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration before the Hon�ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, and the Hon�ble Apex Court has held as under:

These appeals are preferred against the order made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. WP No. 47130 of 2000 etc. on 1-2-2001. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by the impugned judgment has held that the petitioner in the said writ petitions has an alternate remedy by way of petitions before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (the Tribunal), and had permitted the writ petitioner therein to approach the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to entertain any such petition to be filed by the writ petitioner without raising any objection as to limitation. There was a further direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously.

Mr Sunil Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the remedy before the Tribunal under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act is wholly illusory inasmuch as the Tribunal has no power to grant an interim order. Therefore, he contends that the High Court ought not to have relegated the petitioner to a fresh proceeding before the said Tribunal. We do not agree with these arguments of the learned Counsel. When the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. In an appropriate case after entertaining the petitions by an aggrieved party if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it has no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself. Having perused the impugned order, we find no infirmity whatsoever in the said order and the High Court was justified in directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. In the said view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.

In view of the above, I do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As stated above, the petitioner is a public servant and the suspension order has been passed by the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Services Tribunal Act are not applicable in this case.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek their redressal against their grievances before the State Public Service Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner can seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while computing the period of limitation to entertain such petition to be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this Court. Original documents, if any, may be returned to the petitioner if the petitioner desire so provided he furnishes the copy of the said order in the Registry.