. EIEQ €3QI§RT GE? GHH£$ ‘i%{%ARI-i: £ELA$§QE Writ Petition $83 NOL 45§S of 2663 Yaad Ram $fo Shli Kunwar bmgh Dgahmakh, aged abam 30 37mm, R/G Vliiagg d?g1bhat P03+ Shaida ’i‘chsii Dc (Mmmra Dlsfnw Durgwtx) v Versus Dam oi Chhattiswrh through $ecrétary, Rim hayul Gala Rural Devalopment D h b Bhawaix Mantraiaya Rwpur Dlsmct Rallmr {LL} ucnerai Admimstraaon Committee, Ji‘la Pwchayat Kemker, through Chahmaii, Jiia Panciaayat Kanker’ Dismict Kan‘kar {CGy Chief Exmutivr: Officar, Jila Panchayat, .Kallkar, District K {3r {CG}. ‘ §eiiti0ne Réslgquden‘ts (Writ Pefition umisr Article 226 of the Cmmtitution éfinéiia) {83: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agihotri, J.) ‘ Pressm; Sh” Fahd ‘ha counsel for th€ petmon'sr bhri Arm Sam, Govi Advocate fer m6 Stats: GRgL $RDER ' , (Passe& ox; this 28th aay of gugust 20083 With the consent 0f laanmd counsei appemiag for the parties ihe matier is heard imally. Leamed counsei appearmg for the petitioner submits that the respondent-aumozities have faiieci to ur’kierstand me pmport of the order wherein before passing the mpugeec'i Oixier dated 23-5-2008 - (Annemre PfS} as princiyles of aatuml jusl‘ice were required to be- foilowed.’ K is fumher coniended that Show cause 11otice was paesed on one ground 311d the ‘imyugned orcie’r dated 23—5-2008 (Anaexm‘e W5} was passee on digerent ground'. NO show—cauee 11otice [or opportunity of hearmg was afforded to the petitioners in :espectofthe ' groumi, which-was Taken for passing the impugned cider. U “s y H r } ‘ a ’Ir. Jha Earned bo€1n$€1 appearing for ihe petitioner relying 0n decisiml of Th6 Hon’ble Supreme f“ in the niatter 0f I‘LK. Ymiav $75. J.M.A. hidustries Ltél, coxltemis that the fundamental right bf Mr. Jha reiies on the foliowmg v I 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ € ‘ the petitionefs has beeii infringeti, ‘ 1‘ 1 i .fééassage. " r 3 I V x ‘‘13..._ ...... AB matter relaitmg‘ to employment include the n‘ghtto coutmue’ in service till ;he empbyee reaches supemnhuajjonor until his eerviee. is rdulystemnaied in aeeerdance with, just, fair aud rea$0nab1e‘.proeedure prescn'bed under” the provisiege 0f the Constitution and the rules: made, under prc’wisb to Aiiicie 309 0f the Constitution ‘or the statiltoxj‘r pmvisions or fhe. rules; regulau'oxis or instructions havin siatutory §avour. (They must be rcdmformabie to the n‘ghts guaranmed m Part Imam 1V of the Constitution. Amide ‘21 guarala’iees. right to Vlife which ineludes right ' to livelihood, the deyzivation thereof must be. in accox'ciazme wiih just axld fair procedme prescnlbed by law comibmiabie to Articles ‘14 and 21 so as to be just, “fair ami reasonable ami not falieiful, oppressive or at vagary. The principles of aaturs} justice are in integral paii of ‘ihe , guarantee of equajity assured by Article 14. Any i law made or aciion taken by a1: employer must be fair, just and .reasomble. The. power to terminate the service of all lem9loyeejworkman in accordaiilce‘with just, f$ arid reasonable procedure is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Article 14 strikes at arbihaxy action it is not the form of the action, but the substance of , the order that is to be looked irito. I it is open to the comt to hit the veil and gauge the etfect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foumiation to impose punishment or is only a motive.‘ Fair play is to secure justice, prooedur‘i as well as substajitive. V The substance of the ~ order is the sou} and the effect thereof is the eud ri" ' i 3) i have heard leamed counsel arpearing for the parties, perused the pieadiugs arid documeuts appended thereto. \\ \ /‘ .1 (1993) 3 soc-259 ‘ ‘ Q ‘ a 4 ‘ _ g y “ esut. \ i 4;; In th€ matter of Kxishan Chan$er Nayar “Vs. The Ckairma‘n, ¢entral Tracter Organisation aml‘ othetsg, Thair Lordshiyas of the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bciich observed as milder: “The fundamental zight‘ gumtwd by tbs Consh'tutian is not only té make an applicatien fer a past under the Gpvsmmant but tbs further Eight to bs censidérad on merits for the post for which an applidatiau has beer} wads; Of c'ourSe? the n'ght dos$‘ iaot €xt€ud to being actually appointed to fife posit for Which,an application may have been made.” 5) There iS no dispute with regard to the dictum iaid dawn by th ‘Hoa’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.K. Yadav {supra} alld other catena of decisions. This Court, While eonsidexixlg the identicai issue, in a batch of matters ah‘eixlg irom cancellation of appointmeilts of the Shiksha Karmis in the matter of K11. Punam 85 otiters Vs. State of C.G. a5 Gtherss, heir} that the principles of natural justice are required to be compiied Withn having regard to the facts situation \ obtained therein. The, purpose of rules of namrai justice is to prevent the miscan‘ia‘ge ofjus‘tice sod the principles of natural justice are apyiicable to the admmistra‘tive order, if such order eifects right of a citizen. Subsequently, the simiiarly situated Siksha Karmis approached this Court, who were graitted 1iberty to take recourse to altema “ve statutoiy forum that may be available to them as there is appeliate provisiou under the Chhattisgarh Panohayat $hiksha Karim". {Recruitrnent and Conditions of Services) Ruies 2007. <2 3 Am 20% {49) (2) 1962 Cotes. so 366 602 e On the question of availabiJity 09? amimative mimidy. the Hon’bi L § t 3) g i §upreme Cour? 1n the matLer of State! of H P anti others v. GuJara » Ambuja Cement and another" obSeIJIEd as under a irs a e ple gar ema e as ala t e cl 226 s Fo n c owe el tern e oer to e r s al sen r vc ami em e c e xnce 0 1 era y, 1s ' h xin e o l o t0 re eh e t ne c e 0t S r g aee rey not 0 th he as hing t cm With e immehcmm oi t ce la Hh o i tr normiiy the lg Curt shouh mot mefere 1f lere a fac ifeave fi is an adequte eficioue amti rdy If sOmebody approaches th Cort eme e Hlgh u Wiou ee I o ere a I 01 s cse h groc a irina urtx ‘. . , i v. a R , unlap ia t; Ram r w ta o rura, ,‘io i o h ra ' magu e - tate o s a n hz or Regirr o rk in '- d t, . t ihr eia e ’ apaz s ; aza1’ an, ‘r th Wr rarc o aea s rowed th pr s ehaust te staiutry remedies eiore 1es01 tin to writ jun'sdictjonf’ § 7) Further, applying. the said ratio iii the matter of 1}}. $tte Spinning Co. Lté. vs KSK @ande and \anotherF‘ the Hoie y , fo Supreme Court observed as under : ‘“'2} in U P State Bmcige Corpn Ltd v U P Rajya Setu Nrgam S Karmachm Semgh 1r wae held that when the (i1spute relates to egforeement of a rig "f bhgauon under rho 4 (2005) 5 see499 {2005) 8 see 264- e ‘ I “i7 We shR It dei ‘1th th a redmg &tt1ve rmedy as ried by the ppelnt Stafe bxcen ior a pnoél Wheu Ame wa ueuewd bV the worshtuuon {rty eeced Amendment) At 1976 the pr rating Lo alahve rmedy has been cnsnied b a ule 0f self mpoed hmiion it 1s eetjally a ule of pohcy eonmeilce dlsertn and' nver a rule of 1m Desmi the e1ste i 91 , altntive remed 1t Wmnn te Insdctzo 01 d1scrn0n f the Hgh Curt gat rei undr Arude 2‘30 of he Fomumm At the same rune. 1t aanoi b 1s ight oi that thouah the matte relatm t0 an ltmmtw emd hd" tht averhnt’ “the akmauv remedy provaded rile High Court shuld neu that he hS made 1* a trorig a or .tat thele exist good unie to ivoke the exaordry jisdicioi 21 In G veer@pa .Pii'a Rman & aman Lid CCE v. D fnLi Ld endra Kishoe Eisas v Se f Tip Shvgnda Anna Pail u oiaze j Maaraskireq LA Abahm v ITS) {hr Papr Mdls CO Liai v S f Onsa, 1U B Gandhi vs Cay: Nm and Sos Wilpool Cpn V. isa f Trade Mas T Plate Co of Inia Ld v Sare of Ba §he Dv v Js mqh and Puma} Naa§bank 1, 0e Knsim 1111s Coui hem at hee hlehy f peis 1 pd by e staiuie, ary mut x h o b g 5 ' l \ tum 31d cclc J:meay ‘i$, thcmfore, yrswdmi under tlm statute tha Hlgh Cgurt should nut dawate irom thé germral V1€W and muerfem cinder Article 2’ b cxcept whm a very sfrong case 1s masie out far mdkmg a dcpartum Tht person who mm'éta ugon such mnmdy can ava1a of thc procesa d§ prowdsd undex the statutx. th€ samti eiiEct am ths dmhiona m Prammr Aufomobalps I Ltd v. Kamkkw Shantaram Wadka, Raja§fhan SRTC 'v Krishna ax; Chomiralxant ‘Lkaiam mam ‘v. §Iun3c1pa1 orpn of Ahmé€iabad and m bcsotars Indra. vs V11a1 E V b1dr6d‘” 8) N another de‘c1s1on 031 the ceilwpt of mamtamablh‘qr of W‘nu m p‘stition vis—é—vi’s availablhiy of aitstnatlve remady, the Han bk Supreme Court m the maiter of 3ecy. U F. i-hgk Schaol & Intermmiiate Edamation Aiiaha§aaui ‘85 another v. lik La15 db selveii a3 undsr: “4 Fla the recérds it 12, borne: out that the Guesacn as‘io whethcr me iesixmdeilt ha$ a kgal aght t0 'utar ms date n: birth rscordad m th€ cgrtmcai? W%ts& by the Boarti was pendmg coumderanon 'bsfOrs tbs ammllat‘a Court ThF wnt peuuan §led by ms 1esp0nd511t should therctore not have been emeztamed parhcularly m View 01 the fac‘i Lhat the appeal themagamsi ‘ Was pending Wmt Junsdlehon ls d1scret10na1y jun‘edictian and, should net ordium'iiy , be exercised if’rhere is 811 alternative remedy.” Av common thread. running into the dicta 1a1'd. down by: the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe aforementiooeti caseS i$ that normaiiy the High Com should not interfere §f there is an adequate efncaeious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeaie is proVic'ied by the statute, gyariy must exhauet the 'statutoxy remedy befoie 'reeotting to writ jurisc‘iiction; except when a very strong case is maue out for makin a departur. g e 9} 6 {2907) 2 soc 26 1 @ Da 3 spif , m \‘ J ‘ § 1 13) Applying the W6H-settled (he I. laid down by the Hon’bia $uxremc Court on the 1ssue oi aVaJIab ty of altexnative rémmiy to th-‘i ’ facts of the cam, this patition is dismisse‘d as not maintainable' as no Strong case has been made out for exércise 0f cxtraertimazy ‘ ! ) v ¢ ¢ { No arder asto costs. ’ v tish‘K. Agnih‘otri , wage i ‘ (hiwrahoxxaxy jumsdmtmn 1n favour of ithf‘ petjuouer Howaver, liberty k 1‘s rcsexveéi to the yetmonssrs to take gecourse to altemative statutoxy ' ‘ forum, raismg 3.11 the groonds availabig to the petitioner, if so advised. ' a