Original application challenging disciplinary penalty is premature when statutory appellate and revisional remedies remain unexhausted.

The applicant, a Section Officer (Accounts) at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, challenged an Office Memorandum dated 19.04.2024 concerning alleged delinquency in processing an LTC claim and Office Order dated 27.06.2024 imposing the penalty of withholding her next increment for one year.

She also challenged the stoppage of an annual honorarium of ₹5,000 payable under the Inter-University Centre Scheme.

The respondents maintained that the applicant had committed repeated procedural and financial lapses and that the penalty had been imposed by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not exhausted the statutory remedies of appeal and revision under Rules 24 and 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Whether the Original Application challenging the penalty order was maintainable when the applicant had not exhausted the statutory remedies of appeal and revision under Rules 24 and 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?

Whether the Tribunal should examine the applicant’s allegations concerning the disciplinary proceedings, including discrimination, victimisation, procedural irregularity, proportionality of punishment and violation of natural justice, at the threshold?

Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate adjudication of her challenge to the stoppage of annual honorarium and the disciplinary orders?

The Tribunal applied Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which requires an applicant to ordinarily exhaust the remedies available under the relevant service rules before invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It relied on Rules 24 and 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which provide statutory remedies of appeal and revision against disciplinary orders.

The Tribunal further relied on Sudama Prasad Kori v. Union of India and G.D. Sharma v. Union of India concerning exhaustion of departmental remedies, and on High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil regarding restraint in judicial interference with disciplinary proceedings absent procedural illegality or violation of natural justice.

It followed the principle adopted in Parminder Singh v. Union of India & Others, OA No. 60/954/2020, that an Original Application filed without exhausting the available statutory remedy is premature, subject to liberty to pursue the departmental remedy.

The Tribunal found that the order dated 27.06.2024, imposing withholding of one increment, was appealable and revisable under the CCS (CCA) Rules, and that the applicant had neither disputed the availability of those remedies nor demonstrated that they were inefficacious or incapable of granting appropriate relief.

Applying Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal held that the applicant was required to approach the departmental appellate or revisional authorities first.

The allegations relating to factual appreciation, proportionality of punishment, procedural irregularity and natural justice were matters that could appropriately be examined by those authorities.

Since the case presented no exceptional circumstance warranting immediate intervention, and was materially similar to Parminder Singh, the Tribunal declined to examine the merits of the disciplinary action or the honorarium dispute at that stage.

The Tribunal disposed of the OA without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the legality of the disciplinary proceedings, while granting the applicant liberty to pursue the appropriate appeal and/or revision.

If the applicant filed a revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority within 30 days from receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order, the competent authority was directed to consider it on merits by waiving limitation.

No order was made as to costs.