THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.678 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Proceedings No.CGM(ADM.IS & ERP)/DS(ADM)/EE(ADM)/Dy.EE (Adm-I)/11/2014 dated 06.05.2020, awarding punishment of 'dismissal' from service as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Regulation-10(2)(a) of APSEB (Revised) Conduct Regulations adopted by the 1st respondent and set-aside the same."
It is the case of the petitioner that, the second respondent issued proceedings No.CGM (ADM.IS & ERP)/DS(ADM)/EE(ADM)/ Dy.EE (Adm-I)/11/2014 dated 06.05.2020 to the petitioner awarding punishment of 'dismissal' from service as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Regulation 10(2)(a) of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations adopted by the first respondent and without recalling the earlier order of dismissal dated 18.05.2018.
It is the contention of the petitioner that, the interse matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and one Esther Rani has nothing to do with the discharge of the petitioner's duties. Bonafidely thinking that his wife would not return and make any claim since she deserted the petitioner voluntarily, during the course of his service, the petitioner declared one Ch.Krupavathi as his wife and children born to her as the petitioner's family members. Without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent issued Charge Sheet dated 31.10.2014 alleging that the petitioner has furnished false information and he developed illicit intimacy with Ch.Krupavathi and declared her as the wife of the petitioner in the service records of the Corporation.
MSM,J WP_678_2021 2 Thereafter, the second respondent imposed penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner through proceedings dated 26.09.2015 without conducting enquiry as mandated under Regulation 10(2) of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations. Subsequently, W.P.No.34111 of 2015 was filed by this petitioner directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. Vide order dated 14.10.2015, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the proceedings dated 26.09.2015 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, while permitting the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. While the matter is pending, the order dated 06.05.2020 impugned in the writ petition is passed by the respondents which is now challenged on the ground that, when the status quo order was passed by the Court, passing an order impugned in the writ petition is illegal and arbitrary.
At the stage of hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition.
Whereas, Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. GENCO contended that, an appeal is provided under Regulation No.18 of The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations and without approaching the appellate authority/APGENCO, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, which is purely discretionary in nature and when alternative remedy is available, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief in the writ petition which is purely discretionary in nature and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
MSM,J WP_678_2021 3 Without touching the merits of the case, it is well settled that, when an alternative remedy is available, the Courts would not normally exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice or any statutory provisions. Here, in this case, it was not the petitioner's case that the respondents violated principles of natural justice or any other law, but in deviation of the order passed in the earlier writ petition.
No doubt, availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Courts will not normally encourage such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations are statutory in nature and Regulation No.18 provided an appeal against an order passed by the disciplinary authority/appointing authority. But, without exhausting the statutory remedy, the petitioner approached this Court, thereby, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the recent judgment Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1 the Division Bench of the Apex Court held that, when a statutory remedy is available under the statute, the Court would not normally entertain the writ petition against assessment order. The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which normally would not be 1 (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 MSM,J WP_678_2021 4 entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The assessee may thus, not only lose a remedy of having the matter considered on factual facets of the matter but would also stand deprived of regular channels of challenges available to it under the hierarchy of fora available under the Act.
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while relegating the petitioner to approach the respondents/APGENCO in terms of Regulation No.18 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Regulation No.18 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations and in the event of filing an appeal against the impugned order, respondent/APGENCO is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than three months from the date of serving notice on the respondent therein. No costs.
Consequently miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 18.01.2021 SP