2005 (9) TMI 634 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the respondent No. 1 shall be re-instated to service but without any back wages and other service benefits and his re-instatement shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in the termination process.
3. Appropriate relief and directions following the court's findings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellant contended that the writ petition filed by the respondents should not be entertained as they had an efficacious, alternative, and statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court, however, dismissed this contention, emphasizing that the existence of an alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed limitation and not a rule of law. The High Court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, it has the discretion to entertain writ petitions, especially in cases involving gross violations of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court reiterated that while the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it should usually not interfere unless a strong case is made out, or there are exceptional circumstances justifying such interference.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondents challenged their termination on the grounds of procedural unfairness. For respondent No. 1, it was argued that the dismissal order was issued before the receipt of his show-cause reply, which was a clear violation of natural justice. For respondent No. 2, the High Court found that the show-cause notice was not properly served, as it was only published in a news item without ensuring actual receipt by the respondent. The High Court concluded that these procedural lapses justified the quashing of the termination orders.

3. Appropriate Relief and Directions:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding on the violation of natural justice but emphasized the need for a balanced approach. It referred to the precedent set in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, which mandates that if a procedural lapse is found, the appropriate relief is to allow the employer to complete the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of the procedural lapse. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed that the inquiry against respondent No. 1 be completed within four months, starting from the stage of service of the show-cause notice and consideration of the reply. It ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, without any back wages or service benefits. The entitlements, if any, would be adjudicated based on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, directing a fresh inquiry to be completed within four months. Respondent No. 1 was to be reinstated for the sole purpose of completing the inquiry, without back wages or other benefits, and the appeal was allowed to this extent with no order as to costs.