Statutory Appellate Authority Must Dispose of Pending Appeals Against Dismissal Within a Defined Timeline

The petitioner, an employee of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), originally filed this writ petition to quash a charge memo dated 12.03.2020, challenging the jurisdiction of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings

He further sought a stay on departmental proceedings pending a CBI criminal case (RC 0232019A0014) to avoid prejudice to his defense

During the pendency of this writ, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 07.04.2022 by the Inspector General-cum-Chief Security Commissioner

The petitioner subsequently filed a statutory appeal before the Director General, RPF, on 09.05.2022, which remained pending at the time of the hearing

1. Whether the Court should intervene in the disciplinary matter while a statutory appeal against the dismissal order is pending before the Appellate Authority

The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies.

It recognized the right of an aggrieved employee to have their statutory appeal heard and decided by the competent Appellate Authority (Director General, RPF) within a reasonable timeframe

The court also noted the petitioner’s right to seek further judicial review if dissatisfied with the appellate order

The Court observed that the primary relief sought in the original writ petition had been eclipsed by the subsequent order of dismissal and the filing of a statutory appeal

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the dismissal or the procedural irregularities alleged in the charge memo, the Court determined that the most appropriate course of action was to ensure the efficiency of the existing administrative machinery.

By directing the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 5) to resolve the pending appeal, the Court adhered to judicial restraint, allowing the specialized departmental hierarchy to first conclude its findings before the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction

The Court further held that if the petitioner remains aggrieved by the appellate decision, he maintains the liberty to challenge said order before the appropriate forum