VIKRAM SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :-

(2.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the disciplinary proceedings, which ended with imposition of punishment of "removal from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise in the rules of Regulation prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment". THE petitioner after unsuccessfully challenging this removal order dated 1-4-2008 before departmental appellate authority, filed this writ petition. THE appellate authority by order dated 5-9-2008 rejected the said appeal.

(3.) DEALING with the preliminary objection first, in the opinion of this Court, none of the judgments cited by learned senior counsel are applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Each judgment cited by learned senior counsel shows that in all those cases there was a serious dispute of fact before the High Courts and despite that High Court entertained those petitions. This is settled in law that where disputed questions of facts are involved, writ proceeding is not the appropriate remedy and in such cases the petitioner should be relegated to avail a statutory alternative remedy available under the law. In the present case there is no disputed question of fact involved. The documents filed by the petitioner or by the Bank are not disputed by either side. In other words, the genuineness of the documents and enquiry proceedings filed by the parties are not in dispute, therefore, on the basis of admitted documents, this Court can very well examine as to whether procedural part of domestic enquiry was in consonance with the principle of natural justice or not. On the basis of admitted enquiry report, the perversity of findings can very well be examined. Similarly the punishment and appellate orders can be examined on its face value whether the same are in consonance with the established principle of law or not. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, in absence of any disputed question of fact involved, these judgments cited are of no help to the Bank and, therefore, this preliminary objection deserves rejection.