2019 (9) TMI 234 - HC - Indian Laws

Retirement from service with immediate effect - petitioner being an IRS Officer - claim of damages made by the petitioner - powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules - HELD THAT - When alternative remedies under law are available to the petitioner for both the reliefs, what is so extraordinary in the claim for damages to maintain the instant petition and thereby, attract challenge to the orders passed under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, cannot be understood. More so, when, nothing has come to be pointed out that the order passed under Rule 56(j) was so patently erroneous or perverse, which invites interference by this court - Needless to say, the order passed under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules cannot be adjudicated on the premise of inferences. In view of the foregoing, because the writ jurisdiction is unfettered, it does not invest a legal right in anyone to maintain it for all purposes. None of the judgments relied upon by the ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner are of any avail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement.
2. Claim for damages and violation of fundamental rights.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner sought to quash an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The respondents contended that the challenge falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner argued for the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, citing malice and violation of fundamental rights. The petitioner claimed that past actions against him were malicious and depreciated by higher courts. However, the court noted the availability of alternative remedies and questioned the need for extraordinary jurisdiction. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of Article 226, highlighting the petitioner's insistence on maintaining the petition in its entirety. Ultimately, the court found that the order was not patently erroneous or perverse, and alternative legal avenues were available, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Claim for Damages and Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioner also sought damages for alleged harassment, mental agony, and damage to social reputation. The petitioner argued that the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic and malicious. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support the claim for damages. However, the court noted that the order under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules could not be challenged based on inferences alone. The court highlighted that the writ jurisdiction is not an absolute legal right and questioned the extraordinary nature of the claim for damages when statutory and civil remedies were available. The court distinguished previous cases cited by the petitioner, emphasizing the specific circumstances and lack of persuasive precedent in the current case. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for being non-maintainable.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of maintainability of the writ petition and the claim for damages and violation of fundamental rights, providing a comprehensive understanding of the court's reasoning and decision.