- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of the present petition, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-6-96 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Dy. Cashier in the office of Sub-Treasury Of fice, Haridwar. Prayer for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Dy. Cashier in the said office has also been made.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case, while he was working as Dy. Cashier in the Sub-Treasury Office, Haridwar he was suspended from the service. Challenging the validity of the order of suspension, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30525 of 1995, which was finally dis posed of by this Court on 31-10-95 observ ing that the order of suspension was non-est and the petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent authority for ventilation of his grievances. The petitioner, thereafter has filed the repre sentation before the competent authority; but so far his representation has not been decided. In the meanwhile petitioner was served with a charge -sheet containing as many as three charges of serious nature. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted his reply of the said charge sheet and an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, who after completing the enquiry submitted the enquiry report. It is stated that without furnishing the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 relying upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer dismissed the petitioner from ser vice. Petitioner, therefore, had no option, but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and tile the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard and to defend himself. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that it was obligatory, upon the respondents to supp ly the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner if they wanted to rely upon the same, before awarding the punishment. He further submits that the order of dismissal which was passed against the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice, was non-est and was liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for petitioner has also challenged the findings recorded by the punishing authority and submitted that no case for imposing any penalty against him was made out from the material on the record. On the other hand, learned stand ing Counsel submitted that against the order of dismissal, petitioner had statutory alternative remedy and he could file appeal before the next higher authority. Petitioner without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy straightway approached this Court, there fore, the writ petition is liable to be dis missed on the ground of alternative remedy. It was also been urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the finding recorded by the respondent No. 2 it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India.
(3.) I have also considered the submis sions made by the learned Counsel for parties. So far as the objection of the learned standing Counsel regarding the availability of statutory alternative remedy is concerned, the writ petition has already been admitted and counter and rejoinder affidavits have also been filed, therefore, I do not consider it proper to dismiss this petition on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. A reference in this regard may be made to the case of Naini Ranjan Vudyarthi v. Chairman. T. C. Central Office, Bombay, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 584. Where this Court in similar circumstances refused to dismiss the writ petition.;