- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 8-10-1992 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 15-5-1993 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) by which his appeal has been rejected. He has further prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits thereof.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as a conductor with the U. P. S. R. T. C. , in a substantive capacity. A Disciplinary Enquiry was instituted against him as the petitioner on 23-1-1990 while conducting Bus No. UGC 887 from Rath to Hamirpur on checking by the Traffic Superintendent was found carrying 18 passengers without tickets. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) absolving him from all the charges. THE Appointing Authority disagreeing with the Enquiry Report for reasons recorded in the show cause notice dated 6-6-1992 called upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation as to why he may not be dismissed from the service. THE said show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 27-8-1992. However, even before the said notice could be served the petitioner was dismissed from the service by the order dated 26-8-1992 but the said order of dismissal was revoked on 31-8-1992. THE Appointing Authority after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 10- 9-1992 which he had submitted in response to the show cause notice dated 27-8-1992 finally passed a fresh order of dismissal against the petitioner on 8-10-1992. THE said dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner in a Departmental Appeal which was dismissed on 15-5-1993 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition ). It has come on record that the petitioner preferred a revision under Regulation 69-A of the U. P. Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulations 1981, regulations but there is nothing on record to show as to what had happened to the same. THE petitioner in the above background has filed above writ petition challenging the order of his, dismissal from service and the appellate order. Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 paragraphs 18 and 19 Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar etc. , has contended that the impugned order does not record any reason for disagreeing with the Enquiry report and therefore, it is unsustainable under law. He has faintly submitted that a fresh show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of dismissal, as the earlier order dismissing him from service had been revoked. Sri Rahul Gaur, learned Counsel for the U. P. S. R. T. C has raised an objection about the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the proper remedy available to the petitioner is by way of raising a labour dispute. Secondly, the petitioner cannot avail two remedies simultaneously, as his revision under Regulation 69-A of the Regulations is pending.
(3.) IN Jai Singh v. Union of INdia, AIR 1977 SC 898, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that a litigant cannot pursue two remedies simultaneously. However the Apex Court in JT 2004 Supplement (2) SCC 601, S. J. S. Business Enterprises (P) Limited v. State of Bihar, 2004 (7) SCC 166, in paragraph 14 has provided that where t a litigant is pursuing two remedies simultaneously, the Court should give him an opportunity to opt and to choose one of the remedies before throwing out his writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy which is being persuaded by him. IN the present case the petitioner is said to have filed a revision under Regulation 69-A of the regulations. The said regulation providing for the remedy of revision against the appellate order was added and enforced with effect from 16-6-1993. Therefore, when the appellate order was passed on 15-5-1993 there was no provision for any revision. Even if the petitioner had filed the revision subsequently he had not pressed the same nor any action on the said revision till date has been taken by the authority concerned. Therefore, the said revision if any has become redundant and it cannot be said that the petitioner is pursuing two remedies simultaneously i. e. , of revision and the writ petition. The petitioner in the above circumstances has impliedly given up his right to pursue the revision, as according to him the said revision has become a stale and redundant as no action whatsoever was taken on it. Therefore, the writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was pursuing his revision simultaneously with the writ petition.;