V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can be dismissed from service under the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution without holding any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner was a permanent constable appointed in the year 1981 in P.A.C. A First Information Report was lodged by one Shiv Kumar Gupta against the petitioner and one Shamim Ahmad under Section 352/504/506, I.P.C at Police Station, Soraon, Allahabad being Case Crime No. 352 of 1993 and 353 of 1993. The allegation made in the First Information Report was that the petitioner along with Shamim Ahmad threatened the complainant Shiv Kumar Gupta not to do pairvi in the case against his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi pending in Family Court, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police. Allahabad on 17.8.1993 dismissed the petitioner from service under the second Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 17.8.1993 by means of the present writ petition. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State supported the dismissal order and argued that the petitioner has got a remedy of statutory appeal and revision under the U. P. Police Regulation and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The other argument of the standing counsel is that the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service under the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as due to his act the image of the department was lowered.
(3.) Both the arguments of standing counsel cannot be accepted. No doubt there exists an alternative remedy of filing an appeal or revision against the impugned dismissal order but this Court has ample Jurisdiction to Interfere in a matter where the order is either wholly illegal or without jurisdiction or where the principles of natural justice have been violated. The Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCO 1, has laid down that even where there is statutory alternative remedy available, the High Court can interfere (i) for enforcement of fundamental rights (ii) where natural justice is violated and (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of Act is challenged. No doubt under the second proviso to Article 311 (2), principles of natural justice do not apply but there has to be material on record to show that the dismissal order of the petitioner was justified under the aforesaid proviso. No material has been disclosed in the counter-affidavit or in the impugned order of dismissal which can form the basis for forming an opinion by the punishing authority that departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken against the petitioner and he should be dismissed from service under the second proviso to Article 311 (2). In my opinion, the impugned order In absence of any material to justify proceedings under Article 311 (2) cannot prevent the petitioner from approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;