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 17

th

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 11

th

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