SALEK CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an erstwhile employee in the Collect orate of district Meerut, seeks to challenge the order dated 26th November, 1991 (Annexure'6' to the petition) passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Meerut, the respondent no. 2, whereby he was retired compulsorily.

(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow, 1991 ACJ 784 = 1991 AWC 1005, has held thus: "The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and this court, noted above, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the High Court must not allow its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be invoked if the petitioner has got an alternative remedy and such remedy is not pleaded and proved to be inadequate or inefficacious, or if it is not established from the material on record that there exist exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances to deviate from the well settled normal rule of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy and permit him to by-pass the alternative remedy. The hurdle of alternative remedy cannot be allowed to be skipped over lightly on a casual and bald statement in the petition that "there is no other equally efficacious or adequate alternative remedy than to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. "The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is malafide and the court, therefore, must interfere in the matter. The plea of malafide is essentially a plea of fact, and has to be decided on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties concerned'. The plea of malafide in instant case Would better be decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence produced. Normally, in exercise of its special and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not undertake investigation of and adjudication upon the questions of fact.