I. P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a writ application complaining, of the punishment of compulsory retirement made by the appellant authority in a disciplinary proceeding, on the respondent/writ petitioner. In the writ application filed by the respondent/writ petitioner (W.P. No. 24257 (W) of 2014, Hayagrib Naiya v. Diamond Harbour Municipality & Ors.), by a final judgement and order made on 10th April, 2015, this Court quashed and set aside the charge sheet dated 12th April, 2012, the report of the enquiry officer dated 7th February, 2014 the show cause notices dated 21st February, 2014 and 17th May, 2014 and the order of punishment dated 24th July, 2014.
(2.) Aggrieved the municipality is up in appeal before us.
(3.) They repeat the submission made before the Hon'ble first Court that the writ application was not maintainable as there was an alternative remedy. In our opinion the Court below rightly held that since violation of the principles of natural justice was involved, the existence of an alternative remedy was no bar, relying on Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors., 2003 2 SCC 107, which laid down:- "So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., 1998 8 SCC 1. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.";