Interim relief granted; stay on headquarters change pending appeal against suspension order.

The applicant, Ravi Kumar Khatkar, challenged an order dated February 25, 2026, which placed him under suspension with immediate effect due to contemplated disciplinary proceedings.

The impugned order also stipulated that his headquarters would be the Sub Regional Office, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and he could not leave without prior permission of the competent authority.

The applicant's counsel argued that the order was passed without proper application of mind and violated a judgment from the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in *Jitendra Kumar S/o Sh. Harish Chand vs State of Rajasthan* dated October 19, 2020.

The respondent's counsel opposed interim relief, asserting that the impugned order was appealable and the applicant had not exhausted the available alternative remedy by preferring a representation/appeal.

1. Whether the order dated February 25, 2026, placing the applicant under suspension and changing his headquarters, was passed without application of mind and in violation of established legal precedent?

2. Whether the applicant had an alternate efficacious remedy available, rendering the present O.A. premature?

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear applications concerning service matters.

The court also implicitly acknowledged the principle that parties should exhaust available alternative remedies before approaching a tribunal, as argued by the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at this preliminary stage by directing the applicant to make a comprehensive representation/appeal against the impugned order dated February 25, 2026, within three days.

This direction was given because the respondent's counsel argued that the applicant had not utilized the available alternate efficacious remedy of filing a representation/appeal, making the O.A. premature.

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, effectively deferred to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies by instructing the competent authority to consider and dispose of such a representation/appeal within four weeks.

To balance the interests, the Tribunal also directed that the respondents should not implement the change of headquarters from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh for three days beyond the service of the order passed on the applicant's representation/appeal.

The competent authority was directed to consider and pass a reasoned speaking order on this representation/appeal within four weeks of its receipt.

Furthermore, the court directed that the change of headquarters of the applicant from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh, as per the impugned order dated February 25, 2026, would not be given effect for three days beyond the service of the order passed by the respondents on the applicant's representation/appeal.