IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9018 of 2004 Vinay Kumar Singh …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 3. Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Govt of Bihar, Patna. …Respondents ----------- 09. 29.09.2011 Petitioner assails the order dated 7th October, 2003 as contained in Annexure-2, whereby on conclusion of the departmental proceeding he was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. On going through the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that a proceeding was taken up against the petitioner in which articles of charges were framed and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. A detailed enquiry was thereafter made. The petitioner did not participate therein. On conclusion of the proceeding, enquiry report was submitted wherein the charges were held to be proved. Petitioner was thereafter issued show cause notice. From perusal of the reply filed thereto, it appears that the petitioner was also proceeded against in a criminal proceeding in consequence whereof he was lodged in jail custody. The allegation of fraud committed by the petitioner having been proved at the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order. Prima facie, it appears that there is no infirmity in decision making process. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on a 2 judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey & Anr. since reported in 2006 SCC (L &S) 78, contends that the petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act(for short ‘I.D .Act’) as he is governed by the Standing Order and, as such, he has statutory remedy under the I. D. Act. It is submitted that if there is effective remedy available under the Statute, this Court should refrain from exercising its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. For the reasons aforementioned, the application does not merit exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for. It is accordingly dismissed hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )