Alternative Statutory Remedy Must be Exhausted Before Invoking Writ Jurisdiction Against Government Suspension Orders

The petitioner, an In-charge of the Student Branch at Gajra Raja Medical College, was a witness in the "Vyapam Scam" investigation

Following his testimony, he alleged that motivated complaints were filed against him, leading to his transfer and a subsequent show-cause notice dated 13.06.2026

Despite his reply, an order of suspension was issued on 16.06.2026 under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966

The petitioner challenged this suspension directly before the High Court via a writ petition, while the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner

2. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash a suspension order before the exhaustion of statutory remedies

The court applied the principle of "alternative remedy" as a self-imposed limitation on writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass machinery set up by statute (Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid [AIR 1964 SC 1419])

A party's failure to exhaust statutory remedies within time does not entitle them to discretionary relief (A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani [AIR 1961 SC 1506])

Distinction between the "maintainability" and "entertainability" of a writ petition (Godrej Sarah Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer [2023 SCC OnLine SC 95])

The court reasoned that while Article 226 provides wide jurisdiction, it is discretionary and should not be exercised merely because it is lawful to do so

The Judge observed that when a statute provides an equally efficacious and speedy remedy, the High Court should normally refuse to entertain the petition to avoid trenching upon the statutory machinery

In this specific context, where the petitioner sought to challenge a suspension order, the court noted that the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules provide a clear appellate route

The court distinguished the precedent cited by the petitioner (Lokendra Singh Hihore v. State of M.P.) on the grounds that the previous coordinate Bench had not considered the binding Supreme Court decisions regarding the exhaustion of alternative remedies

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority within two weeks. The appellate authority was further directed to decide the appeal on its merits via a reasoned and speaking order within one month, providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.