P R MOURYA Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner, by filing this petition has challenged the punishment order dated 29.6.2013. Shri Kirar fairly admits that there exists a remedy of statutory appeal before the Executive Director (FCI), Zonal Office, West Mumbai, but this petition is directly filed because principles of natural justice are grossly violated. He submits that if petitioner's reply would have been taken into account by the disciplinary authority, the result in the impugned order would have been different. He submits that despite availability of alternative remedy, the petition may be entertained because principles of natural justice and 'due process' were not followed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) No doubt, despite availability of alternative remedy, this Court can entertain a petition. However, this is a discretion and not a compulsion. It is not the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority is not competent to impose the punishment. Violation of principles of natural justice is a common matter in all cases of disciplinary action. This point can very well be examined by the appellate authority in his appellate jurisdiction. If the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority, no palpable injustice would be caused to him. The said authority is well suited to decide the appeal of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, 2005 8 SCC 264 held that merely because principles of natural justice are not followed, the writ is not required to be entertained, unless aforesaid ingredients are also established.