ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The appellant, an employee of the respondent society was imposed a punishment by Ext.P13 order. It was challenging this order, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition relegating the appellant to pursue the alternative statutory remedies. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the society.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings initiated was only to victimise the appellant and that therefore this Court should interfere. In our view, if the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, that will necessarily involve the appreciation of the various factual contentions leading to Ext.P13 order. Such an W.A.No.1803 of 2014 2 exercise can be undertaken only before the fact finding authority and not before this Court, exercising powers of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our view was perfectly justified in relegating the appellant to pursue the alternative statutory remedies.
We do not find any reason to interfere. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj