SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.M. Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.
(2.) WHEN this writ petition was filed in the year 2000 learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that availability of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and this Court had, therefore, entertained the writ petition and recorded that if the prin­ciples of natural justice have been violated and proper procedure has not been followed, then writ petition can be entertained as also for consideration as to whether the dismissal is highly disproportionate to the misconduct even if it be taken to have been established against the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed after holding of an enquiry. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he had raised a ques­tion of bias against the Sub Divisional Officer who had initiated the enquiry on the ground that the charges made against the petitioner related to abusing the said Sub Divisional Officer. For this submission, he has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee and others, (1993) 4 SCC10 and in the case of Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 21.
(3.) THE second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the enquiry officer. He did not supply the relevant documents/name of witnesses who were to be relied upon even during the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, Supreme Court Service Rul­ings Volume 6 Page 614 : (1987) Supp SCC 518 as also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (1998)6SCC 651.;