SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Ms. Rashmi Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today by the petitioner. Let the same be taken on record.
(2.) THE petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 2000 against the order of termination dated 17.05.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut. During the pendency of this writ petition, admittedly the petitioner has died and has been duly substituted by his heirs and legal representatives. Learned counsel for the respondents has at the outset raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 to say that the petitioner had remedy under Rule 20 of filing an appeal as also under Rule 23 of filing a revision against such order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has resisted to the said preliminary objection by saying that when the principles of natural justice are grossly violated, the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Ltd. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and others reported in 1998 8 SCC 1. While referring to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the Punishment Rules to state that a procedure has been provided under Rule 14 for conducting department proceedings and in case the punishment is a major penalty like, dismissal or removal from service, then it has to be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Appendix (A) to the Rules of 1991. The said procedure according to learned counsel for the petitioner is that after institution of a formal enquiry, the enquiry has to be instituted by informing in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and such officer will be afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself. It also provides for framing of definite charges under Form 1 appended to the Rules to be communicated to the officer and he shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence and state whether he requires to be heard in person. The enquiry officer has to conduct the proceedings after obtaining the evidence oral or documentary, as the case may be and permitting the officer of his right to cross examine the witnesses and produce his own witnesses. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the said procedure as provided under Rule 14 of 1991 Rules were followed and in turn, the respondent no. 3 has passed the termination order by invoking his powers under Rule 8(2)(b) of the 1991 Rules. She states that a perusal of the impugned order itself indicates that there are no reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under Rule 14 of the 1991 Rules. It is on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner states that this writ petition is maintainable and he should not be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal or revision as provided under Rules 20 and 23 of the 1991 Rules.;