GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 5. 3. 92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 30. 1. 88 (Annex. 13) by which services of the petitioner were terminated be quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Regional Manager in the Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) Vide order dated. 28. 1. 82. ii) By communication dtd. 10. 6. 85, the petitioner was charged and this charge was explained by statement of allegation. Copy of Communication dtd. 10. 6. 85 and statement of allegation are marked as Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. The specific charge against the petitioner was that he proceed the appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Manager by producing a false certificate wherein it was sought to be certified that the petitioner worked as Assistant Manager in Jhalara Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti from 6. 4. 78 to 2. 5. 81. iii) The petitioner vide his letter dtd. 22. 6. 85 (Annex. 3) requested that the copy of alleged false certificated referred to in the charge may be made available to him. Note: IT may be stated here that the certificate alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of seeking appointment is missing from the file of the respondents and in the communications between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was asked to produce copy of the alleged false certificate as original certificate was missing and on the other hand, the petitioner demanded that before enquiry is held against him, copy of that alleged forged certificate should be provided to him. iv) Ultimately, enquiry Officer submitted his report and it is marked as Annex. 19 and on the basis of that report, the impugned order dtd. 30. 1. 88 (Annex. 13) was passed by the Managing Director, by which services of the petitioner were terminated. v) IT is admitted case of the petitioner that being aggrieved from the order dtd. 30. 1. 88 (annex. 13), the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Federation and copy of appeal is Annex. 14 and that appeal of the petitioner was referred to a Committee constituted by the Board of Directors and the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee. The dates of hearing were fixed many a times, but nothing was done in the matter. There is no dispute on the point that the appeal is still pending. vi) In the meanwhile the petitioner also approached the Civil court by filing a suit which was ultimately withdrawn by him later on. vii) Therefore the present writ petition has been filed on 5. 3. 92 and the order dt. 30. 1. 88 (Annex. 13) has been challenged on various grounds. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent and apart from submitting reply on merits, a preliminary objection was taken by the respondent that since the petitioner has availed alternative remedy i. e. filing of appeal before the Chairman of the Federation as provided in the Bye-laws and when that appeal is still pending, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy. Hence, writ petition be dismissed on this ground alone. I have heard both and perused the record. There are Bye-laws of Rajasthan Tribal areas development Cooperative Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as they Bye-laws ). Rule 38 of the Bye-laws deals with powers of Board of Directors and Rule 38 specifically provides that entire administration of the Nigam shall vest in the Board of Directors and amongst others, the powers of Board shall be:- " 1. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . 17.to hear appeal of the orders passed by the Managing Director against employees of the Nigam in disciplinary cases; 18. . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . 20. . . . . . . 21. . . . . . . 22 Thus, the Bye-laws specifically make provision of appeal against the order passed by the Managing Director and it appears that in pursuance of these Bye-laws, the petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Directors against the order dtd. 30. 1. 88 (annex. 13) passed by the managing Director by which services of petitioner were terminated and the same is still pending.
(3.) THE question that arises for consideration is whether in view of the fact that there is alternative remedy of appeal and the same has been availed by the petitioner though no final adjudication has taken place in that appeal, the present writ petition is maintainable or not? Law on Alternative Remedy In my opinion where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to a litigant, he should pursue that remedy and may not invoke special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. The remedy under Article 226 being, in general, discretionary,t he High Court may refuse to grant it where there exists an alternative remedy, equally efficient and adequate, unless there are good grounds therefore, but where a party complaining of fraud had no other alternative remedy available, he could avail writ remedy. For that following authorities may be referred to: i) Than Singh vs. Supdtd. Taxes (1) ii) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2) iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh (3) ;