Availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal precludes writ interference against service suspension orders.

The petitioner, Narendra Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a suspension order dated 26.02.2026 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat Sirmour

The petitioner had previously responded to a show-cause notice on 13.02.2026, but the CEO subsequently placed him under suspension

The petitioner contended the order was improper, citing the principle that "one who hears must decide"

An intervenor opposed the petition, submitting evidence of the petitioner's alleged dereliction of duty and failure to implement government schemes

The intervenor further raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the statutory rules

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Service Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Service Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provide a specific statutory mechanism for appealing disciplinary actions, including suspension

exhaustion of alternative remedies, which dictates that discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should generally not be exercised when an efficacious statutory remedy exists

The court observed that the records and intervenor's submissions prima facie indicated several allegations of dereliction of duty against the petitioner

The court reasoned that the validity of these factual allegations, as well as the legal challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the suspending authority, are issues that must be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority under the 1999 Rules

By directing the petitioner to the statutory appellate process, the court emphasized that the specialized authority is the appropriate forum to examine the merits and procedural propriety of the suspension order

Consequently, the court declined to interfere at the writ stage to ensure the statutory hierarchy of remedies was respected

It held that the petitioner must avail himself of the alternative remedy of appeal

The court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 10 days, the Appellate Authority must decide the matter within 30 days by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity for a hearing to all concerned parties