HIMATSINGH RAIJIBHAI CHAVDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, a security guard of CISF, unit Baroda, filed this Writ petition challenging thereunder the order of the Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bombay dated 19-1-1984 under which he was dismissed from the services after holding a departmental inquiry.

(2.) In the order it has been mentioned that if the petitioner is aggrieved of this order he may prefer an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, (W/Zone) CISF, Bombay within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Though the order was appealable, but the petitioner instead of approaching to the appellate authority has filed this writ petition before this Court on 27th January, 1984. An objection has been taken by the respondent in the reply which has been filed in the year 1984 that the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the order. The petitioner is this Special Civil Application has not given out that the right of appeal is not available to him.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has given out the justification for filing of the Special Civil Application directly before this Court in the form that the petitioner was in possession of the Government Quarter and after his dismissal from the services, the respondent would have taken the forceful possession in case the court had not protected him. So the Writ jurisdiction has been availed of by the petitioner only to get interim relief aginast his eviction from the Government premises. On 30th January, 1984, this Court has protected the petitioner from eviction of the premises, but it is not in dispute that this stay order comes to an end by efflux of time" and that urgency which has been shown was no more there after 17th March, 1984. The counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that the petitioner has vacated the premises long back. Whatever justification which the petitioner had to approach this court by passing the remedy of appeal no more survives and the petitioner should be now asked to go before the appellate authority against the impugned order. Where remedy of appeal is provided against the impugned order then the petitioner has to avail of the said remedy rather than to come before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The litigants should be discourged to approach this Court directly in the matter where he has a statutory remedy available against the impugned order.