Statutory Appeal Remedy Must Be Exhausted Despite Allegations of Procedural Irregularities or Jurisdictional Defects

The applicant, a Loco Pilot (Shunter-II) in the East Central Railway, was removed from service via an impugned order dated 08.04.2026.

The disciplinary proceedings arose from an incident on 23.06.2025 involving allegations of misconduct, unlawful assembly, and misbehavior.

The applicant challenged the removal on multiple grounds, including the non-supply of relied-upon documents, refusal to take his replies on record, bias of the Inquiry Officer, violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution (assertion that the order was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority), and failure to consider his medical condition (depression).

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application, contending the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal.

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable despite the non-exhaustion of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available under the service rules?

2. Whether the gravity of the procedural irregularities and jurisdictional claims (Article 311) necessitates the Tribunal's immediate intervention bypassing the appellate stage?

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the procedure for applications to the Tribunal.

The "Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies," noting that while the rule is one of discretion and not compulsion, judicial prudence requires litigants to pursue statutory remedies first.

State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited (2022), which reaffirmed that High Courts (and by extension Tribunals) should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 19 when an efficacious statutory remedy exists, especially in matters involving disputed questions of fact.

Constitutional protections under Article 311(1) regarding the competency of the removing authority.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness—such as the denial of natural justice and the bias of the inquiry officer—alongside the respondents' objection.

While the Tribunal acknowledged that issues like "lack of jurisdiction" or "patent illegality" are recognized exceptions to the exhaustion rule, it reasoned that the current case involves complex disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence regarding the inquiry’s conduct.

The Tribunal found that the mere existence of exceptional grounds does not automatically warrant bypassing the appellate hierarchy.

It determined that the competent appellate authority is the appropriate first forum to adjudicate these factual and procedural grievances before the Tribunal exercises its judicial review power.

The O.A. was disposed of with liberty granted to the applicant to file a statutory appeal within two weeks, with the Appellate Authority directed to decide the appeal via a reasoned and speaking order within three months.