- (1.) Whether the Administrative or Qasi-Judicial authorities are obliged to observe principles of natural justice and whether an alternative remedy available under a statute is an absolute bar for exercising writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution are short but significant questions that fall for consideration in the present petition filed by a student of third year Civil Engineering for the session 1988-89, in Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College Gorakhpur (for short the College) which was governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act 1971 (for short the Act) and its statutes.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that a FIR (Annexure-2) was lodged by one Sushil Kumar Verma, a student of Engineering college against the petitioner and 2 other students for an offence u/S.377/504, I.P.C. (the unnatural offence and criminal tress pass). That case appears to be under investigation but the Dean of the Students of the College taking it to be a misconduct and indiscipline awarded the punishment of expulsion of the petitioner from the college as well as the hostel with immediate effect by the order dated 18-9-1989 (Annexure 1) whereas other two students. Anuj Kumar and Harish Chandra Sharma were suspended from classes till 31-10-89 and one A. K. Tripathi was expelled from Hostel only.
(3.) Sri S. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring a Reference against the impugned order passed by the Dean of Students with approval of the Principal of the College, u/S. 68 of the Act hence present petition was not maintainable. Suffice it to say that an alternative remedy is not a rule of law but just a rule of convenience and discretion. Even if there is an alternative remedy available nevertheless the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted particularly when the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contains no reason for the punishment awarded. The representation u/S. 68 of the Act cannot be said to provide really an effective alternative remedy particularly when no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the said order contains no reason at all. See Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147.;