Permission granted to withdraw application to exhaust available alternate efficacious statutory remedy of Review.

The applicant, a Deputy Director General (Engg.) at Prasar Bharati, challenged the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 28.07.2020 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 23.04.2024

Two separate Original Applications (O.A.s) were clubbed together as the issues involved were identical

During the proceedings, the respondents filed M.A. No. 377/2026 seeking the deletion of Respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) from the array of parties, contending that the applicant had not yet filed a Review Application before the Reviewing Authority, making the Ministry's inclusion premature

1. Whether the applicant could maintain the present O.A.s without exhausting the efficacious alternate remedy of a Review Application

The Tribunal recognized the procedural requirement of exhausting efficacious alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

It specifically acknowledged the statutory right of an aggrieved employee to file a Review Application against the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities as a prerequisite for further legal recourse

The Tribunal noted it was undisputed that the applicant had an available alternate remedy via a Review Application against the impugned orders

The respondents argued that since no such review had been preferred, Respondent No. 1 was not a necessary party to the current litigation

Upon realizing the procedural bypass, the applicant's counsel requested permission to withdraw the O.A.s to approach the Reviewing Authority instead

The Tribunal found this request reasonable and consistent with service law principles requiring the exhaustion of internal administrative remedies

It granted the applicant liberty to agitate his grievances before the Reviewing Authority in accordance with the law

All associated Miscellaneous Applications (M.A.s) were disposed of accordingly