NITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Safai Karmchari. His services have been terminated by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry and report as well as a spot inspection. In the circumstances, the order being in violation of principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Safai Karmcharis have been given the status of a government servant by virtue of the Government Order dated 11th April, 2008 read with the Government Order dated 6th June, 2008. He therefore contends that the services of the petitioner would be governed by the 1999 Rules.

(3.) According to the said rules, against the order of punishment, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal. The apex court in the case of Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India & others, Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17213 of 2010) has recently ruled that when an alternative remedy is available then the court should insist availing of such remedy. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's case falls within the exception of such a rule as natural justice has been violated.