Holding

A writ petition challenging a termination order is maintainable where the order is passed without complying with statutory disciplinary procedures and violates natural justice, and such petition must be entertained despite the existence of an alternative remedy.

Summary

Satwati Deswal, a lecturer promoted to principal in a Haryana school, was terminated by the school manager without any show‑cause notice, disciplinary inquiry, or opportunity of hearing. She challenged the termination by filing a writ petition, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed on the ground that she had an alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because the termination violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedure requiring a disciplinary inquiry and approval of the Managing Committee. The Court noted that a writ can be entertained despite the existence of an alternative remedy when there is a breach of natural justice or a vires issue. Consequently, the termination order was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists but the termination order violates principles of natural justice.
Whether termination of service without a show‑cause notice, disciplinary inquiry, and approval as mandated by the statutory rules is valid.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Subjects

natural justicewrit petitiontermination of serviceshow cause noticedisciplinary inquiryalternative remedymaintainabilitySupreme Court

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 697

SATWATI DESWAL A
V.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 2009)
..
NOVEMBER 6, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, .)J.]
'J"'
Writ jurisdiction: Writ petition - Maintainability,~of -
"' Termination order passed without issuing show cause notice;
without initiating disciplinary proceedings by authorities and
without affording opporlunity of hearing - Writ pefftion;·;.;. Held: .C
Maintainable in such case even if there was alternative
remedy since there was violation of principle of natural justice
- Natural justice.

The question which arose for consideration in the D
present appeal was whether High Court was justified in
... dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant challenging
her termination order.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. High Court fell in grave error in rejecting the
writ petition. The 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 F
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 vi res of the act were G
~ in question. [Para 5] [780-A-C]

A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v.
697
H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15I (ADDL.). S.C.R.
. .

A Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1506;'
L.K. Verma v. H.M. T. Ltd.& Anr. AIR 2006 SC 975; M.P. State- ._
Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan
Khan AIR 2007' SC 3153, relied on.

2. A cursory look of the statutory provision of the
8 Constitution of ·the Paris had Working Committees shows
that before imposing any major penalty against an
employee;1 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 is
C required to frame definite charges on the basis of
allegations on which an inquiry should 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
0 can be passed without the approval of the Managing
Committee. On this count alone, therefore, the High Court
was in grave error in dismissing the writ petition. [Para
8) [700-G-H; 701-A-C]

Case Law Reference :
E
AIR 1961 SC 1506 relied on Para 6

AIR 2006 SC 975 relied on Para 6

AIR 2007 SC 3153 relied on Para 6
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7397 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2007 of the High
G Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 7460 of 2007.
..
Sanjay Sharawat, for the Appellant.

Rutwik Panda, Anil Hooda, Dr. Sushil Balwad? for the
H ... - ...
·1.
SATWATI DESWAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 699
ORS.
Respondents. A
j,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
'
< 2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the B
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 c
remedy of appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
examined the impugned judgment as well as the other materials
on record.
D
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 :-
• E
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 F
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
4,
her nor the order of termination was passed by initiating any
departmental proceeding after giving opportunity of hearing to G
the appellant. This order of termination was challenged by the
-\
appellant by way of a writ petition before the High Court, 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.
H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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
8
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.
c
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 principles of the above exceptions when
0
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
E (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
F opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. It is clear from
the record that the order of termination was passed without
initiating any discipliric:iry proceedings and without affording any
opportunity of hearing' J 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
G availability of alternative remedy to challenge the order of
termination, the writ petition was not maintainable in law.
l

8. Apart from that, on a cursory look of the statutory
provision of the Constitution of the Parishad Working
H Committees, it would be clear that before imposing any major
SATWATI DESWAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 701
ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
penalty against an employee, namely, an order of termination A
;. 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 B
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.
(
, c
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the order of termination passeEl--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 D
termination from service and if such disciplinary proceedings
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 E
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 F
is quashed. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as
to costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed.
=(

•
(

'\
~