REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7397 OF 2009                       [Arising out of SLP©No.11917 of 2007]

Satwati Deswal                   …Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Ors.                          …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special  leave has been filed against the  

judgment and final order dated 17th of May, 2007 passed  

by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in  

CWP No. 7460 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the  

High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the  

appellant on the ground of maintainability and relegated  

the appellant to take statutory remedy of appeal.

1

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and  

examined the impugned judgment as well  as the other  

materials on record.  

4. In our view, this appeal must succeed on a very short point.  

Before we take up the ground on which this appeal should  

be allowed, we may state the relevant facts leading to the  

filing of this appeal, which are as follows :-

The  appellant  [M.A.  B.Ed.  M.Sc  (Computer)]  was  

appointed as a lecturer in 2003 in a recognized school in the  

State of Haryana and was subsequently promoted to the post  

of Principal on account of her seniority. Her appointment and  

promotion were duly approved by the concerned authorities,  

but  by a  non-speaking and unreasoned order  dated  11th of  

September,  2006,  her  services  were  terminated  by  the  

Manager of the School, namely, the respondent No.5 herein.  

Admittedly, in this case, no show-cause notice was issued to  

her nor the order of termination was passed by initiating any  

departmental proceeding after giving opportunity of hearing to  

the appellant. This order of termination was challenged by the  

appellant  by  way  of  a  writ  petition  before  the  High  Court,  

2

which was dismissed by it on the ground that the appellant  

had an alternative remedy to file an appeal under the rules  

before the appellate authority against the order of termination.  

5. In  our view,  the  High Court  had fallen  in  grave  error  in  

rejecting the  writ  petition on the aforesaid  ground.  First,  

such an order of termination was passed without issuing  

any  show  cause  notice  to  the  appellant  and  without  

initiating  any  disciplinary  proceedings  by  the  authorities  

and without affording any opportunity of hearing.  It is well  

settled that a writ petition can be held to be maintainable  

even if an alternative remedy available to an aggrieved party  

where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction  

or for enforcement of a fundamental right; or if there had  

been a violation of a principle of natural justice; or where  

vires of the act were in question.

6. The  aforesaid  exceptions  recognized  by  this  Court  were  

taken  note  of  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  A.V.  

Venkateswaran,  Collector  of  Customs,  Bombay  v.  

Ramchand  Sobhraj  Wadhwani  &  Anr.  (AIR  1961  SC  

1506), in  which  the  Constitution  Bench  laid  down  the  

3

principles  of  the  above  exceptions  when  writ  application  

could  be  entertained  even  if  an  alternative  remedy  was  

available  to  an  aggrieved  party.   The  same  view  was  

expressed  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  L.K.  Verma  v.  

H.M.T.  Ltd.&  Anr.  (AIR  2006  SC  975) and  M.P.State  

Agro  Industries  Development  Corporation  &  Anr.  v.  

Jahan Khan (AIR 2007 SC 3153).    

7. Such being the position and in view of the admitted fact  

in  this  case  that  before  termination  of  the  services  of  the  

appellant,  no  disciplinary  proceeding  was  initiated  nor  any  

opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. It is clear  

from  the  record  that  the  order  of  termination  was  passed  

without  initiating  any  disciplinary  proceedings  and  without  

affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant.  In that  

view of the matter, we are of the view that the writ petition was  

maintainable  in  law  and  the  High  Court  was  in  error  in  

holding  that  in  view  of  availability  of  alternative  remedy to  

challenge the order of termination, the writ petition was not  

maintainable in law.  

4

8. Apart  from  that,  on  a  cursory  look  of  the  statutory  

provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Parishad  Working  

Committees, it would be clear that before imposing any major  

penalty against an employee, namely, an order of termination  

of service, an inquiry must be held in the manner specified in  

the statutory rules by which the disciplinary authority shall  

frame definite charges on the basis of allegations on which an  

inquiry shall be  proposed and opportunity must be given to  

the  employee  to  submit  a  written  statement  stating  therein  

whether he/she desires to be heard in person and no order of  

termination also can be passed without the approval  of  the  

Managing  Committee.   On  this  count  alone,  therefore,  the  

High Court was, in our view, in grave error in dismissing the  

writ petition of the writ petitioner.    

9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is  

set  aside  and  the  order  of  termination  passed  against  the  

appellant  is  quashed  and  the  writ  petition  stands  allowed.  

However, it would be open to the authorities, if so desire, to  

initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for her  

termination from service and if such disciplinary proceedings  

5

are initiated, the authorities shall give proper opportunity of  

hearing and permit the parties to adduce evidence in support  

of their respective stands and after giving such opportunity,  

the disciplinary authorities thereafter shall give hearing to the  

appellant  and  then  pass  a  final  order  on  the  question  of  

termination of service of the appellant in compliance with the  

concerned statutory rules applicable to the appellant.     

10. For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  the  impugned  order  is  set  

aside  and  the  order  of  termination  passed  against  the  

appellant is quashed.  The appeal is allowed.  There will be no  

order as to costs.   

…………………………..J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; …………………………..J. November 06, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

6