An application bypassing an available statutory appeal is not maintainable.

The applicant, Hukum Chandra, serving as Chief Office Superintendent in the Engineering Department, Track Machine Depot, North Central Railway, challenged the punishment order dated 6 April 2026 and connected orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The respondents contended that the applicant had an available statutory remedy of appeal against the punishment order but had approached the Tribunal directly without exhausting that remedy.

The applicant did not dispute the existence of the alternative appellate remedy.

The Original Application was therefore considered at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Whether the Original Application challenging the punishment order was maintainable when the applicant had an available statutory remedy of appeal that had not been exhausted

Whether the applicant should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with appropriate directions regarding the time-bound disposal of the appeal

The Tribunal applied the principle that where an effective statutory alternative remedy is available, a court or tribunal should ordinarily decline to entertain a direct challenge before that remedy is exhausted.

It treated the right of appeal as a substantive right and held that the applicant’s direct approach to the Tribunal was improper.

The Tribunal relied on The State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 Supreme (SC) 948, which, referring to United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, CCT v. Indian Explosives Ltd., City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, and Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement, reaffirmed that statutory appellate mechanisms should not ordinarily be bypassed and that judicial prudence requires courts to refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction where an efficacious alternative remedy exists.

The recognised exceptions to the rule—such as a challenge to the vires of legislation, violation of principles of natural justice, or exceptional circumstances—were not found applicable on the facts presented.

The applicant challenged the punishment order directly before the Tribunal despite conceding that an appellate remedy was available.

Applying the rule that statutory remedies must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking constitutional or supervisory jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that the direct filing of the Original Application was premature and procedurally improper.

Since no exceptional circumstance or legally recognised justification for bypassing the appeal was established, the Tribunal declined to examine the merits of the punishment order.

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Greatship (India) Ltd., the applicant was required first to pursue the statutory appellate mechanism.

The applicant was granted liberty to file the appeal and pursue other remedies available in law.

If the appeal was filed within four weeks from 27 August 2026, the Appellate Authority was directed to decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.