R. A. Sharma. J. - (1.) PETITIONER, who claims to be head constable, has filed this writ petition against order of nils dismissal from service, after holding departmental enquiry. Against such an order there is statutory remedy of appeal which is efficacious alternative remedy. This writ petition, as such, is not maintainable.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that when there are allegations of breach of principle of natural justice, this Court is bound to interfere and it is not open to it to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. In support of the above submission reliance has been placed on Gorakhnath Yadav. v. District Magistrate. 1992 (2) UP LB EC 795 and V. Vellaswamy v. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1982 SC 82. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. In case there is violation of principle of natural justice this court can also entertain writ petitions without relegating the person aggrieved to the alternative forum. But as the question, relating to violation of principle of natural Justice, can be raised before and be decided by appellate authority, this court is not bound to decide the writ petition on merit. It all depends On the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is not the rule of thumb that whenever there are allegations of breach of natural justice this court must entertain writ petition. In the case of Gorakhnath Yadav (supra) counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit were exchanged between the parties and the writ was at the stage of final disposal at admission stage. In view of the above position and also in view of the fact that there was no dispute about the question of fact, this court entertains the writ petition and decided on merit. In the instant case the writ petition is being disposed of at the threshold. In the case of V. Vellaswamy (supra) the Supreme Court expressed doubt on the question as to whether right to review of proceeding would be an efficacious alternative remedy. Review, not having been considered in view of the provisions of the rules referred to therein, as efficacious alternative remedy, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, was held to be harsh. In the instant case alternative remedy is not that of review, but statutory appeal which is available against the order of punishment and in which both question of facts are liable to be decided In this connection it may also be stated [that the question as to whether there has been violation of principle of natural justice is essentially a question of fact which has to be decided on the basis of material which may be produced by the parties. If there is alternative forum, which is more appropriate to decide the question of fact, like violation of principle of natural justice, it is not desirable that the writ petition should be entertained, unless in view of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court considers otherwise.
(3.) WRIT petition Is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. --- Petition dismissed.;