SATWATI DESWAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 06-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 697 
SATWATI DESWAL 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 6, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, .)J.] 
'J"' 
Writ jurisdiction: Writ petition -
Maintainability,~of -
A 
B 
"' 
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 
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 
E 
• 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 
·1. 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
I 
. 
. 
. 
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] 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference : 
AIR 1961 SC 1506 
AIR 2006 SC 975 
AIR 2007 SC 3153 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 6 
Para 6 
Para 6 
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 
... - ... 
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. 
' 
B 
< 
2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the 
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 
F 
by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 11th of 
September, 2006, her services were terminated by the 
Manager of the School, namely, the respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.