Challenge to administrative proceedings is premature absent any final penalty or adverse impact on service conditions.

The applicant, a Constable in the Special Service Force (SSF) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, filed an Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He sought to quash several memoranda and orders, including a conversion of a clarification into an inquiry and the withdrawal of his "Open Pass".

The applicant had previously filed O.A. No. 131/2026, which was withdrawn on January 14, 2026.

Following that withdrawal, the respondents issued a communication on March 12, 2026, stating that the applicant's grievances and replies to earlier memoranda were still "under process".

The applicant alleged that the administrative actions were retaliatory and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

Whether a fresh cause of action had accrued to the applicant to maintain the O.A. given that the administrative proceedings were still pending and no penalty had been imposed.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The court applied the fundamental principle of administrative law regarding "cause of action," which requires an applicant to demonstrate a finalized grievance or a prejudicial order before seeking judicial review.

It further considered the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, as the respondents indicated that the applicant’s representations were still being processed.

The Tribunal scrutinized the current status of the applicant's employment and the impugned proceedings.

It noted that the respondents' communication dated March 12, 2026, explicitly stated that the applicant's reply to the memorandum was still being processed by the Ministry.

During the hearing, the Tribunal raised a query regarding the accrual of a cause of action, pointing out that no penalty had been inflicted on the applicant, he was performing his duties regularly, and he was receiving his admissible salary.

Since the administrative process had not culminated in a final adverse order, the Tribunal suggested that the challenge was premature.

In response to this observation, the applicant, appearing in person, requested to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the matter. The O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh application in accordance with the law should a cause of action arise in the future.

No order as to costs was made.