AI Insights
This case involves a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners, all of whom were employees of the Department of Communication and Information Technology under the Central Government. They were appointed as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants following a recruitment notice. The petitions challenged various disciplinary actions, including dismissals and charge-sheets, alleging that these actions were based on impersonation during recruitment examinations. The court examined whether it should entertain these writ petitions given the availability of alternative remedies such as appeals and revisions against the disciplinary actions. The court ultimately decided not to entertain the writ petitions, citing the availability of alternative remedies and the principle of judicial prudence.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700276 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
05-01-2021
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP-2900-2020(O&M) Naveen Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 2. CWP-14918-2020(O&M) Rohit .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 3. CWP-16844-2020(O&M) Sunil Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 4. CWP-18063-2020(O&M) Sarita .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 5. CWP-18142-2020(O&M) Ishwar Singh .......Petitioner Versus REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 2 Union of India and others ......Respondents 6. CWP-18148-2020(O&M) Hari Om .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 7. CWP-18382-2020(O&M) Suman Devi .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 8. CWP-17979-2020(O&M) Ajit .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 9. CWP-27001-2019(O&M) Sandeep Kohar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 10. CWP-28859-2019(O&M) REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 3 Ravi .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 11 CWP-29182-2019(O&M) Amit Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 12. CWP-28863-2019(O&M) Pardeep Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 13. CWP-30055-2019(O&M) Sandeep Singh @ Sandeep .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 14. CWP-35025-2019(O&M) Ankit Singh .......Petitioner Versus REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 4 Union of India and others ......Respondents 15. CWP-13198-2020(O&M) Dilawar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 16. CWP-8015-2020(O&M) Robin Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 17. CWP-8192-2020(O&M) Manoj Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 18. CWP-8479-2020(O&M) Sandeep Singh .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 19. CWP-9023-2020(O&M) Harish .......Petitioner REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 5 Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 20. CWP-9063-2020(O&M) Amit Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 21. CWP-19023-2020(O&M) Parveen .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 22. CWP-19619-2020(O&M) Sunil Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 23. CWP-19661-2020(O&M) Manish .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 6 24. CWP-19674-2020(O&M) Amit .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 25. CWP-6496-2020(O&M) Arvind Yadav .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 26. CWP-9379-2020(O&M) Sarvan Kumar Suthar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents 27. COCP-1345-2020(O&M) ARVIND YADAV .......Petitioner Versus RANJU PARSAD CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL HARYANA AND ANR ......Respondents 28. COCP-1635-2020(O&M) SANDEEP SINGH .......Petitioner REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 7 Versus PARDEEP KUMAR BISOI AND OTHERS ......Respondents 29. COCP-1970-2020(O&M) AMIT KUMAR .......Petitioner Versus NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS ......Respondents 30. COCP-4006-2019(O&M) SANDEEP KOHAR .......Petitioner(s) Versus TARA CHAND SHARMA ......Respondents Date of decision:05.01.2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present:- Mr.Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-2900 of 2020, 27001, 28859, 29182, 28863, 30055 35025 of 2019, COCP-4006-2019 Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-9023-2020 Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-14918, 16844, 9063, 9379 of 2020 Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner in COCP-1635-2020, CWP-13198, 8015, 8192, 8479 of 2020 REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 8 Mr. Vikas Bahl, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner in COCP-1970 of 2020 Mr. S.S.Nain and Mr. S.S.Goripuria, Advocates for the petitioner in CWP-18063, 18142, 18148, 17979, 19023, 19619, 19661 19674 of 2020 Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-18382 of 2020 Mr. S.S.Kharb, Advocate for the petitioner in COCP-1345 of 2020 and CWP-6496-2020 Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Mr. Namit Kumar and Mr. Nishad Ahuja, Advocates for UOI ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. By this order 30 petitions i.e 26 CWPs i.e 27001, 28859, 29182, 28863, 30055, 35025 of 2019, 2900, 14918, 16844, 18063, 18142, 18148, 18382, 17979, 13198, 8015, 8192, 8479, 9023, 9063, 19023, 19619, 19661, 19674, 6496 & 9379 of 2020 and 4 COCPs i.e 1345, 1635, 1970 of 2020 and 4006 of 2019 shall stand disposed of. In 13 writ petitions, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order of dismissal/removal from the service. In some cases, the statutory appeal filed have also been dismissed. In 11 writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the charge-sheet issued for initiating disciplinary proceedings. Whereas in two writ petitions, the petitioners were found ineligible to be appointed. At the outset, it must be noticed that this Court has heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of availability of equally efficacious remedy and hence, in view thereof, whether this Court REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 9 should entertain writ petition under Article 226/27 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted here that learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in various petitions do not dispute that all the petitioners do have an alternative remedy. In some cases, appeal against the order of dismissal/removal is maintainable, however, no such appeal has been filed. Further, against the orders of dismissal/removal after dismissal of the statutory appeal, the remedies of revision/review are also maintainable. All these petitioners were employees of Department of Communication and Information Technology, under the Central Government. They were selected pursuant to a recruitment notice issued on 21.2.2014 to work as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in the Post Offices. In December, 2015, a recruitment examination held for post of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants was ordered to be cancelled. Various petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunals were filed. It is alleged that the aforesaid petitions were allowed. However, High Court of Gujarat set aside the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of these matters on 13.7.2017. It held that since the allegations of illegality are in the areas of States of Uttrakhand, Rajasthan, Chhatisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat therefore, it would not be appropriate to cancel the entire examination. Thus, the Supreme Court permitted the Department to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Basic allegation against the employees is that they had not appeared in the recruitment examination themselves and certain other persons had impersonated them. After receiving report REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 10 from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding comparison of signatures of the candidates on the Aptitude Test, Typing Test and Data Entry Test with the standard signatures, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that since the writ petitions have been entertained and interim protections in certain cases have been granted, therefore, it would not be now appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy. They further submitted that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is absolute and therefore, the Court has correctly entertained writ petitions. In support of their arguments, learned counsels placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Bal Krishan Ram vs. UOI (2020) 2 SCC 442. Learned counsels have also drawn attention of the Court to a Constitution Bench judgment in State of UP vs. Mohd. Nooh (1958) SCR 595. Further reliance has been placed on case titled as Hindustan Steel Construction vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Employees Union (2005) 6 SCC 725 and an unreported judgment in Genpact India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 decided on 22.11.2019. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners do have equally effective alternative remedies. He relies upon Constitution Bench judgment in L.Chandra Kumar vs. UOI and others (1997) 2 SCT 423. REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 11 After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are required to be relegated to alternative remedies. No doubt, the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not prohibit or debar the Court from entertaining the writ petitions filed under the Constitution however, there is self imposed rule of prudence to the effect that if an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available the writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensations. No doubt, it is not a rule of law, however, its a rule of discretion. It is neither rule of jurisdiction but of prudence. Now let us examine the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In Bal Krishan Ram’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was hearing civil appeal challenging a full bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court. In that case, the question was whether after constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge would be maintainable before the Division Bench or before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Full Bench in Nand Kishore Sahu vs. Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and others 2012 SCC Online Allahabad, 3559, held that after the judgment passed by the Single Bench, appeal would be maintainable before the Division Bench and the parties are not required to be referred to Armed Forces Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the civil appeal observed that the alternative remedy is the rule of prudence and not a rule of law. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioners. This judgment does not lay down that the High Court REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 12 should entertain the writ petitions irrespective of effective alternative remedies available. Next judgment relied upon by the learned counsels is Hindustan Steel Construction’s case (supra). On careful reading thereof, it is apparent that the Supreme Court directed the parties to avail alternative remedy. In that case, a writ petition was filed in the High Court alleging violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the construction allowance has been withdrawn. The High Court allowed the writ petition, whereas Supreme Court set aside the same and directed the parties to avail alternative remedy. While deciding the aforesaid case, certain observations were made which cannot be read out of context. Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the parties to avail alternative remedy. Next reliance is upon Genpact’s case (supra). In this case, an order passed by the authority was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was entertained. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. When the matter was taken to Supreme Court, it was ultimately held that the parties should be relegated to the alternative remedy. Last judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is State of UP (supra). In this judgment, a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that availability of effective alternative remedy is a matter of discretion and it all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case. The Bench ultimately went on to set aside the judgment of the High Court on an entirely different issue. Next argument of the learned counsel is that once the writ REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-2900-2020(O&M) and connected cases 13 petitions have been entertained and interim orders have been granted, therefore, now it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioners. This aspect has also been examined by the Supreme Court in State of UP vs. UP Rajya Khanji Vikas Nigam Sangarsh Samiti and others 2008 (12) SCC 675. After noticing that the writ petition has been admitted for final hearing the Court still held that once alternative remedy is available, the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative remedy. In view of the aforesaid discussions as also the facts of these cases, this Court is of the considered view that all the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative remedies as available. The petitioners have failed to draw attention of the Court to any special circumstances to persuade the Court to take a different view. Hence, all the writ petitions are disposed of in view of the observations made above. There are certain contempt petitions for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is alleged that the interim orders passed by this Court have been violated. Since this Court has already held that the petitioners are required to be relegated to the alternative remedy, therefore, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the petitions for initiation of contempt proceedings. Hence, they are also disposed of, particularly, when the interim orders merge with this judgment. 05.01.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) rekha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes /No Whether Reportable Yes / No REKHA SIHAG 2021.01.08 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh "
Other Referred Cases
Bal Krishan Ram vs. UOI, State of UP vs. Mohd. Nooh, Hindustan Steel Construction vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Employees Union, Genpact India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, L.Chandra Kumar vs. UOI and others, State of UP vs. UP Rajya Khanji Vikas Nigam Sangarsh Samiti and others
Laws Referred To
Constitution of India
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Convertible Note Agreement
Mehul₹5000
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026