KRISHNA BALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Shujauddin Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 15.1.2019, 28.1.2019, 20.2.2019 and 3.8.2019 passed by opposite party no.4 as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 together with the orders dated 24.8.2019 and 25.8.2019 passed by opposite party no.3, which are contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. By means of the aforesaid impugned orders, minor punishments have been awarded to the petitioner.

(3.) Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by submitting that the petitioner has got efficacious alternative statutory remedy by approaching the State Public Services Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, this writ petition may not be maintainable in view of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Sri Ran Vijay Singh has referred the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; K.K. Shrivastava and others v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and others, (1977) 2 SCC 494, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Nareshwar Sahai Mathur and another, (1995) 1 SCC 21, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and others, (2011) 14 SCC 337 and a latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., dated 22.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8945 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20728 of 2019). On the strength of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has submitted that this writ petition may be dismissed being not maintainable.