RAJEEV KUMAR TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 7th May, 2007, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby Orginal Application No. 457 of 2007 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Tribunal observing that against the order of suspension the petitioner has remedy of review under Rule 29A of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as '1965 Rules') and in case such an application is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of three weeks, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the order of suspension, impugned before the Tribunal, being wholly without jurisdiction the Tribunal erred in law by declining to consider this aspect of the matter.

(2.) THIS writ petition came up before this Court for admission on 21st May, 2007 as a fresh matter. The respondents put in their appearance through Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel filed two counter-affidavits one on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and another on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, copies whereof were already served upon learned counsel for the petitioner on 20th May, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, requested for 24 hours time to file rejoinder-affidavit and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned for 22nd May, 2007 on which date the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is no doubt true that normally this Court decline to entertain a matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where a litigant has a statutory alternative remedy, unless such remedy is availed. However, there are certain exception, namely where order impugned in the writ petition has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice or is wholly without jurisdiction or has violated the fundamental rights or vires of the Statute is under challenge.