Statutory administrative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial review of adverse service entries.

The applicant, a Principal Scientist at CSIR-IICB, was issued a warning letter on 08.07.2025 alleging misconduct and breach of conduct rules for participating in a contractual staff agitation

The applicant denied these allegations on 11.07.2025; however, a Collegium Committee subsequently recorded adverse entries against him without granting him an opportunity to defend himself

The applicant’s representations against these entries remained unanswered

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the Office Memorandum dated 08.07.2025 and the adverse entries dated 17.07.2025

The respondents contended that the application was premature as the applicant had not exhausted the administrative remedy of appealing to the Director General, CSIR (DGCSIR)

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable before the Tribunal when the applicant has not exhausted the alternative administrative remedies available under the organization’s Bye-Laws

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the DGCSIR to adjudicate upon the applicant's grievance regarding the warning letter and adverse entries

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is governed by Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

the court relied on the Rules & Regulations and Bye-Laws contained in the Memorandum of Association of CSIR, which provides an appellate mechanism to the Director General of CSIR (DGCSIR) for disputes against decisions made by the Management Council

The Tribunal evaluated the respondents' objection regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. It noted that the CSIR’s internal Bye-Laws specifically provide a channel for employees to challenge management decisions before the DGCSIR

Although the applicant’s counsel opposed remitting the matter back to the department, the Tribunal determined that the DGCSIR is the appropriate authority to first consider the merits of the applicant's denial of misconduct and the procedural validity of the Collegium Committee’s adverse entries

The Tribunal reasoned that a time-bound direction to the DGCSIR to issue a reasoned and speaking order would effectively address the applicant's grievances while maintaining administrative hierarchy

It held that the applicant must first exhaust the internal administrative remedy. The applicant was granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the DGCSIR within 15 days

The DGCSIR was directed to consider and dispose of the representation via a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days of receipt, with the decision to be communicated to the applicant immediately thereafter

No order as to costs was made