Failure to Exhaust Statutory Remedy Bar to Entertaining Original Application Under Administrative Tribunals Act

The Applicant, a former Assistant at the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), was served a Charge Memorandum on 11.04.2019 for a departmental inquiry

Following the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 02.12.2024 imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service

The Applicant challenged both the Charge Memorandum and the dismissal order before the Tribunal, alleging that the Charge Memorandum was based on an unverified vigilance report and that the dismissal order was passed by an incompetent authority

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Original Application (OA) was not maintainable as the Applicant had failed to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy of a departmental appeal

1. Whether the OA is maintainable under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy of appeal.

2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to seek direct judicial review of the penalty order on grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of jurisdiction of the signatory.

Section 20(1) 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 the relevant service rules

Regulation 17 and Regulation 18 (Second Schedule, Entry No. 89) of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023, which provide a statutory right of appeal to the Insurance Commissioner (Zonal) against orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority

The Tribunal observed that a clear statutory framework for departmental appeals exists under the ESIC Regulations of 2023, which the Applicant undisputedly bypassed

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's contention that the alleged incompetence of the authority or flaws in the Charge Memorandum justified bypassing the statutory hierarchy. The Bench reasoned that all such grounds—including challenges to the decision-making process, the validity of relied-upon documents (RUDs), and the competency of the signatory—can and should be raised before the Appellate Authority

Given the explicit bar under Section 20 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the Tribunal found the application to be premature and declined to exercise its jurisdiction at this stage

The application was disposed of as premature. However, the Tribunal granted the Applicant liberty to file a statutory appeal before the competent Appellate Authority within two weeks of receiving the order, directing said Authority to decide the appeal based on the material on record

No order as to costs was made