S.S.Sodhi, C.J. - (1.) When an effective alternative remedy is available, the long established and well settled rule of the Court, in its writ jurisdiction is relegating the petitioner to such alternative remedy, and more so where the relief claimed is founded upon disputed questions of fact stands out in bold relief here - by its breach.
(2.) On July 11, 1989, when the respondent held the post of Co- operative Supervisor, the impugned order was passed holding him guilty of having embezzled a sum of over Rs. 6 lakhs odd, and as a consequence he was removed from service and the said sum was directed to be recovered from him. It is this order which he sought to challenge in writ proceedings.
(3.) There was admittedly the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order available to the respondent under Regulation 70 of the Co-operative Federal Authority Business Regulations, 1976 framed by the U.P. Co-operative Union. Before the learned Single Judge an objection was raised to the maintainability of this Writ petition on the ground that this alternative remedy of appeal was available to the respondent. This was negatived with the observations: "The alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case." The learned Judge went on to say: "The punishment imposed on the petitioner is said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of law. If the petitioner succeeds in proving that the he was punished at his back without affording any opportunity to him, his petition cannot be thrown out summarily on the ground of the bar of alternative remedy.";