http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6951 of 2005

PETITIONER: Shiv Kumar Sharma                                        

RESPONDENT: D.G.M., Central Bank of India and Ors.           

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/2005

BENCH: ARUN KUMAR & G.P. MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P(C ) No.15343 of 2005)

ARUN KUMAR, J

       By order dated 18th November, 2005 this court allowed the above  appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision of the Writ  Petition filed by the appellant in the High Court on merits.  We hereby give  reasons for the aforesaid order.           The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Central Bank of India  on 12th May, 1981.  He was placed under suspension in view of a criminal  case registered against him.  Simultaneously a departmental enquiry was  held against the appellant.  Enquiry report went against the appellant and a  2show cause notice dated 19th December, 1997 was issued proposing the  punishment of discharge from service.  On 9th February, 1998 order was  issued confirming the punishment as proposed in the show cause notice.   The departmental remedies persued by the appellant against the said action  failed.  Ultimately the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court on  24th May, 2003 challenging the said action against him.  The said Writ  Petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy  vide impugned order dated 2nd September, 2004.  The present appeal is  directed against the said order.  We have perused the impugned order of the  High Court.  Although on the question of availability of alternative remedy  the view of the High Court  cannot be faulted, yet in the circumstances of the  present case, specially when such a long time has elapsed since the action of  suspension and thereafter discharge from service was taken against the  appellant, we feel that the appellant ought not to have been non-suited  on  the ground of availability of alternative remedy.  It is settled law that  availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise of  jurisidiction  under Article 226 of the Constitution by High Courts.  The  long lapse of time since the appellant has been out of  job persuades us  not  to drive him to another round of litigation under the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947.  Interest of justice in the present case demands  that the Writ Petition  filed by the appellant before the High Court be disposed of on merits.   Accordingly we direct the High Court to finally dispose of the Writ Petition  on merits in accordance with law.  The impugned judgment of the High  Court is accordingly set aside.

27363