JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, challenging the orders dated 15.6.2002 and 1.7.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures-38 and 40 to the writ petition, respectively).
2. It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of Sugar Godown Keeper in the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bisalpur, Pilibhit. On account of certain charges against him a first information report under Section 380, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner on 7.6.1999. a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
3. It further appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 9.6.1999. a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
4. Thereafter, it appears that the charge-sheet dated 30.6.1999, was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. After holding enquiry, it appears 'that' the enquiry officer (respondent No. 4) submitted his enquiry report dated 30.3.2002, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-34 to the writ petition.
5. After the said enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 26.4.2002, was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2. A copy of the said show cause notice has been filed as Annexure-35 to the writ petition.
6. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 16.5.2002, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-36 to the writ petition.
7. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-38 to the writ petition), inter alia terminating the services of the petitioner.
8. By the said order dated 15.6.2002, notice was also given to the petitioner to show cause as to why his gratuity be not confiscated.
9. It appears that the petitioner did not show cause regarding the confiscation of his gratuity and ultimately, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure-40 to the writ petition), inter alia, directing for confiscation of the gratuity payable to the petitioner.
10. It appears that against the said order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-38 to the writ petition), the petitioner filed an appeal on 18.6.2002 under the relevant provisions of the standing orders applicable to the employees of the Sugar Mills. A copy of the appeal has been filed as Annexure-39 to the writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure-40 to the writ petition), the gratuity of the petitioner has been confiscated and the said order is vitiated. Admittedly, an appeal lies against the said order dated 1.7.2002 under the relevant provisions of the standing orders. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 1.7.2002 by filing appeal under the (relevant) provisions of the standing orders. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said order dated 1.7.2002 cannot be entertained on account of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that even though an appeal filed under the relevant provisions of the standing orders should be decided within 21 days of filing of the said appeal, the appeal filed by the petitioner on 18.6.2002, has not been decided by the respondent No. 3 as yet.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it will be just and proper to direct the respondent No. 3 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 15.6.2002, expeditiously, preferably within a period six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3 along with a copy of the appeal by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 3 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 15.6.2002, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the appeal before the respondent No. 3 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.
16. It is made clear that no directions are being given on the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioner as it is for the respondent No. 3 to take appropriate decision in this regard.
17. It is further made clear that the respondent No. 3 will decide the appeal without being Influenced by any observations made in this judgment on the merits of the case.
18. As indicated above, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure-40 to the writ petition). If such an appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the same will be entertained by the respondent No. 3 without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. The appeal so filed by the petitioner will be decided expeditiously.
19. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.