Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Khursheed Anwar Khan vs District Magistrate,Deoria & Ors

Supreme Court10 August 2009R.M.Lodha · P.Sathasivam

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a public servant has been dismissed from service and has not availed the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time, but subsequently sought to file an appeal at a later stage before the High Court and was denied permission to do so, the High Court's refusal to permit the filing of the statutory appeal is reviewable, and in cases involving dismissal from service, such permission should be granted to allow the employee to exhaust the alternative remedy of departmental appeal under the governing service rules before further challenging the dismissal order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5271 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9679 OF 2006)

KHURSHEED ANWAR KHAN .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,DEORIA & ORS ....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant was serving as an Arms Clerk. After a departmental enquiry, he was

dismissed from service w.e.f.20.09.2004. Thereafter, he challenged the same by filing a Writ

Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By Order dt.10.03.2005, though the

learned Single Judge referred to factual details about the enquiry and ultimate dismissal,

however, finally dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy

of departmental appeal.

The appellant, instead of resorting to the appeal remedy, filed a Special Appeal before

the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order dt.06.04.2006, the Division Bench

dismissed the Special Appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal

by way of Special Leave Petition.

A reading of the impugned order of the Division Bench shows that after arguing his case

for some time, the counsel for appellant sought permission to file an appeal in the department.

However, the Division Bench turned down his request since the matter was argued for some

time and ultimately dismissed his appeal.

It is not in dispute that as per Rule 11 of the U.P.Government Servant (Punishment and

Appeal) Rules, 1999, the appellant is entitled to file an appeal before the appellate authority. No

doubt, the appellant has not availed such remedy at the appropriate time. Even after dismissal 2

of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge, he could have availed such remedy. But the

fact remains that though he wanted to avail such remedy at the appellate stage, the Division

Bench has not permitted him to file the same. Having note of the fact that the appellant has

been dismissed from service, we are of the view that the appellant may be permitted to challenge

the order of dismissal by resorting to Rule 11 of the U.P.Government Servant (Punishment and

Appeal) Rules, 1999 as mentioned above.

The appellant is permitted to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within a period of

four weeks. On such appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider and

dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

.............................J. ( P.SATHASIVAM )

.............................J. ( R.M.LODHA ) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 10, 2009.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free