Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an employee of U.P.S.R.T.C., Etah Region. Farrukhabad, has challenged the order dated 30th June. 1990, whereby the respondent-Corporation after holding regular disciplinary enquiry against the charge levelled against the petitioner passed an order of removal against the petitioner. The petitioner though had a remedy of filing an appeal against the order of removal but have approached this Court. This matter, which was filed in the year, 1990, came up for final hearing/disposal before me and the matter was heard on merits.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation though tried to argue that since the petition is not admitted, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the service regulations. In my opinion, interest of justice would demand that the matter be decided on merits, particularly when the fact that counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been exchanged.;