### Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies and Disposal of Pending Appeal Against Stigmatic Termination of Contractual Employee

The applicant was employed as a contractual Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) from December 24, 2019, until January 5, 2022

On January 31, 2022, the respondents issued a termination order based on allegations of revenue leakage found during checking

The applicant contended that this was a stigmatic termination passed without a formal inquiry or an opportunity to be heard

Despite filing a departmental appeal on February 15, 2022, and subsequent reminders through 2025 and 2026, the respondents failed to decide on the matter

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to finalize his pending appeal/representations

1. Whether the Original Application can be admitted before the exhaustion of available statutory departmental remedies.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the competent authority to decide the pending appeal on merits regardless of the delay.

Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless the applicant has exhausted all available remedies under relevant service rules

The principle laid down in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, which cautions that repeated representations do not cure defects in filing timely appeals

The principles of natural justice and the statutory right to appeal provided under Regulation 15(2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1992

The Tribunal observed that the termination order dated January 31, 2022, was prima facie stigmatic as it was based on misconduct (revenue leakage) without the benefit of a detailed inquiry

the Tribunal noted that Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, creates a statutory bar against admitting applications where departmental remedies are still pending

the Tribunal emphasized that the object of departmental appeals is to provide a remedy to lower-strata employees to have higher authorities review the facts and the quantum of penalty

The Tribunal reasoned that since the respondents had acknowledged the receipt of the representations but failed to pass an order, the most appropriate course of action was to compel the competent authority to fulfill its statutory duty

The Court held that the competent authority must dispose of the appeal on its merits within four weeks, specifically directing them to waive the period of limitation to ensure the applicant's grievance is substantively addressed

No costs were awarded