Statutory appeal must be decided by reasoned order before judicial review is maintainable under Administrative Tribunals Act

The applicant, a Section Supervisor (LSG) in the Postmaster General’s office, Varanasi, was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1992

Despite 33 years of service, he alleged denial of regular promotion to HSG-I

Following a 2022 charge-sheet regarding alleged misconduct in legal advice, a penalty was imposed, which was later set aside in revision due to the incompetence of the issuing authority, leading to a de novo enquiry

A fresh charge-sheet was issued on January 5, 2026, resulting in a penalty order dated March 5, 2026, which reduced his pay by one stage for three months without cumulative effect

The applicant filed a statutory appeal on April 20, 2026, followed by a stay application on April 27, 2026

Alleging inaction by the appellate authority and seeking to quash the penalty, the applicant approached the Tribunal

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable given that the applicant’s statutory appeal is still pending before the respondent authorities

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the competent authority to decide the pending appeal within a stipulated timeframe

The court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies as contemplated under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which generally requires an applicant to exhaust available statutory departmental remedies (such as appeals) before approaching the Tribunal

Specifically, the Tribunal exercised its discretionary power to direct a "reasoned and speaking order" from the executive branch to ensure administrative accountability and timely redressal of grievances

The applicant challenged the penalty order primarily on the grounds of procedural irregularities and malafides

However, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was premature because the applicant had already invoked the statutory appellate mechanism on April 20, 2026, which remained undecided

The Tribunal observed that since the appeal was actively pending, it was appropriate for the appellate authority—rather than the Tribunal—to first exercise its jurisdiction to review the merits of the penalty and the enquiry process

To balance the applicant's right to a timely resolution with the procedural requirement of exhausting remedies, the Tribunal determined that a time-bound direction to the respondents would be the most equitable course of action

It directed Respondent No. 2 (Director General of Postal Services) to consider and decide the applicant's pending appeal dated April 20, 2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment