T K RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can existence of escape route such as emergency exit door or safety valve ever be pleaded as a ground for using the escape route as a State Highway or National Highway ? This in short is the question which arises in this petition. In spite of the fact that there is alternative remedy by way of appeal the petitioner insists that this High Court should exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Field Assistant with respondent No. 2-Corporation. He has been ordered to be removed from service by order dated 15/12/1986 produced at Annexure-L to the petition. It was alleged that in past when the petitioner was at Chuda Sheep Extension Centre he was served with show-cause notice to explain As to why his services should not be terminated on account of frequent absence and irregularities. The petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and ultimately as per order referred to hereinabove his services have been terminated. This order is challenged by filing petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the order can be challenged before the appropriate appellate authority constituted under the relevant provisions of the Rules and Regulations of respondent No. 2 But it is submitted that the impugned order is a nullity and therefore this High Court should entertain the petition and should not reject the same on the ground of alternative remedy by way of appeal available to the petitioner. It is submitted that a copy of the report of the Extension Officer was not supplied to the petitioner. In his submission there was no inquiry and therefore it should be held that the order is passed without holding any inquiry against the petitioner and hence it is a nullity. Looking at the impugned order it cannot be said that there was no inquiry. If appears that the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. Thereafter there were some proceedings. Whether the inquiry was in conformity with the principles of natural justice and in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Rules and Regulations applicable to the inquiry in question of fact. To arrive at a conclusive decision as to whether the inquiry is in contravention of the principles of natural justice or in contravention of the provisions of the Rules and Regulations one is required to examine the facts of the case. Ex fact the impugned order does not indicate that no inquiry whatsoever was held and the order is passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice or in contravention of the provisions of the relevant Rules and Regulations. Therefore the contention that the order is a nullity cannot be accepted without further examination of the facts of the case. It is submitted that even when some examination of facts are necessary by this Court that course may be adopted in this case because ultimately if it is found that the impugned order is a nullity no useful purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to go before the appellate authority. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the remedy by way of appeal cannot be said to be efficacious and therefore the petition be entertained. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.