N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri K. S. Bajpai learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. R. Khan Advocate for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS is a writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 27.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 and further for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner in service and pay him salary with full back wages. Shiv Prasad Awasthi is a Member of U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services and his services are governed by the Rules known as U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and the Regulations known as U. P. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). The petitioner has been dismissed from service by conducting the disciplinary inquiry under Regulation 59 of the aforesaid Regulations. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal as provided under Regulation 60 of the aforesaid Regulations and instead he has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned dismissal order.
(3.) AT the time of hearing on admission, the learned counsel for the opposite party has raised preliminary objections for entertaining the writ petition without availing the alternative remedy by way of appeal. The case of the petitioner is that since no inquiry at all has been conducted before issuing the notice for dismissal and there is a violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition can be entertained. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred decision in Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru and others, AIR 1998 SC 66, in which it has been held that 'it is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify the by-passing of the alternative remedies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred a decision in Nannu Mal v. Heera Mal and others, AIR 1975 SC 2140. The ratio of this judgment is that the election of the president of the Municipal Board can be challenged only by an election petition presented according to the provision of the Act and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded.;