A.P.Singh - (1.) PETITIONER of this writ petition happens to be clerk-cum- cashier of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank which is sponsored by the Bank of Baroda under the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. At the time, petitioner was posted at Saton branch of the bank, he was served with charge- sheet dated 18.7.85 by respondent No. 2. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that petitioner had dishonestly withdrawn Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 5.000 on 26.3.1985 from the account of Sri Amar Pal, Rs. 8,500 and Rs. 7,500 on 3.5.1985 from the joint account of Sri Jagannath and Jagdish in all from both the accounts Rs. 28,500 on 26.3.1985 and 3.5.1985. PETITIONER filed his reply on 26.7.85 and denied the charges. Respondent No. 4 who was appointed to hold enquiry on the charges levelled on the petitioner, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 2. On 20.3.1989. In the Enquiry Report respondent No. 4 held petitioner guilty of the charges which were levelled on him in the charge-sheet. The enquiry was held ex parte against the petitioner as he did not appear in the enquiry proceedings on the ground of illness. Respondent No. 2 thereafter served a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 17.4.1989 calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not punished with an order of dismissal from service on the charges of mis-conduct which were found proved against him as per the report of respondent No. 4. PETITIONER sent a letter of request to respondent No. 2 in which he opposed the award of the punishment which was proposed against him and requested the respondent No. 2 to summon the Branch Manager who was working in the Saton Branch of the Bank on 26.3.85 who according to the petitioner, was responsible for the withdrawals in question. PETITIONER's request for summoning, the Branch Manager was not accepted and opposite party No. 2 by his order dated 11.4.1990 dismissed the petitioner from the services of the Bank holding him guilty of the charges which were levelled on him with charge-sheet referred to above. PETITIONER then filed appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank on 5.5.1990. In the appeal too, petitioner maintained that the withdrawals in question were handiwork of the Branch Manager of the Bank and not his. PETITIONER's appeal was however rejected by the Board on 29.6.1990 and its decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.8.1990 sent by the Chairman of the Board.
(2.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the dismissal order dated 11.4.1990 and Board's order dismissing his appeal on 29.6.90 mainly on the following grounds : (a) The charges of making withdrawal of the amounts by the petitioner as mentioned in the charge-sheet, have not been proved ; (b) The petitioner was made scapegoat so as to save the skin of the Branch Manager who was really the person responsible for the fraudulent withdrawals which are attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet; (c) The Appellate Authority having failed to apply its mind to the points raised in the appeal while considering petitioner's appeal, has denied opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ; (d) Presence of opposite party No. 2 in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Board m the meeting of Board of Directors which rejected petitioner's appeal against the order passed by Opposite Party No. 2 himself resulted in the breach of the principles of natural Justice; and (e) The punishment awarded to the petitioner is dis-proportionate to the guilt which has been held proved against him. Opposite parties have opposed the contentions advanced on petitioner's behalf and contended that: (a) Petitioner who has refused to appear In the enquiry proceedings has no face to complain breach of principles of natural justice. (b) Charges have been fully established against the petitioner both from documentary evidence as well as from oral testimony of bank staff and it was fully proved that it was the petitioner who had made the withdrawls which were attributed to him in the charge-sheet. (c) The Appellate Authority (The Board of Directors) applied its mind and considered the points raised and rejected the appeal. (d) The charges being serious having reflection on the credit of the Bank dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment, therefore, the punishment of dismissal cannot be termed as dis-proportionate to the gravity of the charges. (e) This Court has no power while exercising power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine as to whether or not the charges are proved and whether the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on sufficient evidence. (f) Petitioner being a Workman within the provisions of Section 2 (5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 proper course open for him for challenging the dismissal from service is to raise industrial dispute before the Labour Court under Section 10 of that Act. Petitioner, therefore, being possessed of effective alternative statutory remedy cannot be allowed to invoke extra-ordinary constitutional remedy of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before entering the merits of the case, it is necessary to deal with the last point first as it is of preliminary nature.
(3.) TO be fair as matter of fact during the course of arguments in the Court, this point was not raised by the learned counsel for the Bank. Hearing of the writ petition was adjourned on various occasions for various reasons and since the hearing was punctuated by many adjournments, I requested the learned counsel for the parties to also give, if they so liked, their written submissions to which both readily agreed and have filed their written submissions. It is in the written arguments of respondents' learned counsel that this point was raised for the first time which has also been raised in Para 23 (last paragraph) of the counter- affidavit which has been filed by respondents. It is no doubt true that where an applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution approaches this Court, it is the duty of this Court to first satisfy itself before entering to examine the matter into merits as to whether the applicant has any effective and efficacious statutory remedy to get the relief he has sought in the petition brought by him to the Court. Once this Court is satisfied that he can get the relief elsewhere, this Court shall refrain from entertaining the matter. For this it is not that an objection in this regard must be raised on behalf of the respondents to the petition. The question, however, is as to what is the appropriate stage for closing the doors of the Court at the face of the petitioner on the ground that doors of some other court are open for him where he can get the requisite relief if he knocks its doors.;