SCA/5487/1985 of K V DAVDA Vs L G KULKARNI on 14 August 1997

ORAL JUDGMENT:

The matter was called out for hearing in the firstround, second round and lastly in the third round. None putappearance on behalf of the respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and The petitioner, an officer of the State Bank of India haschallenged by this special civil application the order dated9th August, 1985 passed by the respondent whereby he hasbeen dismissed from the bank's service as per Rule 49(h) ofthe State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules,and it has further been ordered that the period spent by thepetitioner under suspension from 9-12-83 be treated as such.The counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentionschallenging the legality and correctness of the propriety ofthe order impugned. But I do not consider it necessary toadvert to any of the contentions for the reason that theorder impugned in this special civil application isappealable under Rule 51(1) and (2) of the aforesaid ServiceRules. Under letter dated 9th August, 1985 of therespondent, the order of dismissal has been communicated tothe petitioner and it has been specifically mentioned thatif he so desired, he may prefer appeal against the saidorder to the appellate authority within time stipulatedtherein. Still, the petitioner has not availed of thatremedy. When a statutory alternative remedy was availableagainst the impugned order, then the petition is notmaintainable

2. In para 22 of the petition the petitioner hasdeliberately made a wrong statement that he has noalternative remedy. So far as the other aspect, whether theremedy is adequate or efficacious or not, is concerned,nothing has been said. In absence of the reasons given insupport of the averments that the remedy is not adequate andefficacious, the petitioner has no justification tocircumvent the remedy available under law.

3. In the result this special civil application fails andthe same is dismissed only on the ground of availability ofalternative remedy. The petitioner shall be at liberty tofile appeal against the impugned order to the appellateauthority, in accordance with the service rules, within aperiod of one month from the date of receipt of certifiedcopy of this order; and the appellate authority shall decidethe same on merits and shall not dismiss the same on theground of period of limitation. Subject to the aforesaiddirections, rule discharged. No order as to costs.

.....

csm