NISAR AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the challenge in this petition is the Order of dismissal dated 4th June 1999, passed by respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) with effect from 4th June 1999. The order is passed by respondent no.3 purportedly in pursuance of the powers vested in him under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the following grounds:

(2.) The respondents have filed their Reply Affidavit. The maintainability of the writ petition is opposed on the ground that the order of the appellate authority dated 12th February 2004 is further appealable before the competent authority and, therefore, in view of availability of the statutory remedy, which is equally efficacious, the writ petition may not be maintainable. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition has also been objected on the ground that the order dated 12th February 2004 was passed in Udhaipur, Tripura. The factual averments made by the petitioner with regard to the denial of the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and non-compliance of the provisions of the Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955, have been denied.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the contention of the respondents that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition or that the petition is not maintainable, is without any substance. What is challenged in this petition is essentially the order of dismissal passed by respondent no.3 on 4th June 1999 at Anantnag and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Regarding the statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner under CRPF Act and Rules framed thereunder, it may be noted that the writ petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the major penalty of the dismissal has been inflicted upon the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the assertion of the alternative statutory remedy may not be insisted upon. If in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was indeed violation of the principles of natural justice, then there would be no difficulty for this Court to exercise the writ jurisdiction even if the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. We may quickly reproduce paragraphs 05 and 06 of the judgement with advantage, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana and others, 2010 1 SCC 126: