A government servant must ordinarily exhaust the statutory appellate remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, an Assistant Grade-III (Steward) at Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior, challenged his suspension dated 16 June 2026 and charge-sheet dated 28 July 2026.

He alleged that the Dean, who was personally involved in the underlying incident, had examined the matter, suspended him and issued the charge-sheet.

He also claimed that relied-upon documents and electronic material had not been supplied despite his representation, impairing his ability to defend himself.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the Article 226 petition when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal.

2. Whether the Court should grant relief concerning non-supply of relied-upon material, including by quashing the charge-sheet or directing disclosure.

Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction, but the Court will ordinarily decline to exercise it where an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available.

State of U.P. v. Md. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, and Godrej Sara Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority were cited regarding the distinction between maintainability and entertainability and the principles governing alternative remedies.

Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid states that the writ court should ordinarily avoid bypassing statutory machinery, while A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani holds that a petitioner generally cannot rely on a statutory remedy lost through their own fault as a reason for writ relief.

The petitioner also invoked Rules 9(2-a) and 9(5) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor on disclosure of relied-upon material; the Court did not decide those substantive questions.

Because a statutory appeal was available, the Court applied the general rule that the petitioner should first pursue that remedy and declined to adjudicate the challenges to the suspension and charge-sheet in the writ petition.

It held that High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, relied upon by the petitioner, did not warrant relief on the facts of this case.

As to the alleged non-supply of documents and electronic material, rather than decide the issue, the Court directed the Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the competent appellate authority within three weeks; if filed within that period, the authority must decide it on the merits by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the petitioner a personal hearing, within one month from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer must consider the petitioner’s request for relied-upon material in accordance with law within one month from receipt of the certified copy.