Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the award of censure entry has preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the enquiry was instituted and the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report exonerating from all three charges which have been levied against the petitioner, but without showing disagreement from the finding of the Enquiry Officer and without recording fresh conclusion by the Appointing Authority, the impugned order of censure entry has been passed, to which learned Standing Counsel submits that the the petitioner has got specific, efficacious and alternative remedy by preferring a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal raising the grievance, which has been raised in the instant writ petition, to which learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify the Court as to why the petitioner may not be relegated to the alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal.
In the cases of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2011) 2 SCC 782], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available, if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 6.2.2012 lakshman