HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No.441 of 2005 P. N. Pathak S/o late Sri Ram Swaroop Pathak ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents Dated :- 01st September, 2009 Mr. Atul Bhatt, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mrs. Beena Panday, Standing counsel for the State of U.P. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.01.2005 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) as well as the impugned order dated 08.02.2005 (Annexure No.19 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P., Lucknow. (ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the costs of the petition to the present petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioner is a government servant; an enquiry was conducted; thereafter on the basis of inquiry report the punishment was awarded to the petitioner; and the petitioner has challenged the impunged punishment orders dated 06.01.2005 & 08.02.2005 (Annexure-18 & 19 to the petition). It was further submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Public Service Tribunal, as such, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should have first approached to the Tribunal. The detailed reasons have been assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S) and Nanda Ballabh Pant Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No.257/2005 (S/B). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. In view of Section 4 of Public Service Tribunal Act, the petitioner is a government. Thus, this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. In view of above, the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Public Services Tribunal. As such, the petition is not maintainable before this Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner can seek his redressal before the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand. However, the Tribunal while computing the period of limitation to entertain such petition to be filed by the petitioner will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this court. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 01.09.2009 LSR