Tribunal declines to entertain disciplinary challenge where statutory appellate remedy remains unexhausted.

The applicant, a Pointsman/HRDR in Northern Railway, was appointed after being declared successful in the respondents’ recruitment process. Subsequently, information obtained during a vigilance exercise allegedly indicated that another person had appeared in the examination in his place and that the applicant had secured appointment through impersonation.

A charge memorandum was issued to him on 2 April 2025, which he denied in his written statement. Following a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 19 May 2026 finding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed an order dated 16 June 2026 dismissing him from service.

The applicant challenged the inquiry report and dismissal order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement, continuity of service, consequential monetary benefits, and other reliefs.

The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the applicant had not availed the statutory departmental appeal available to him and had directly approached the Tribunal.

Whether the Original Application was maintainable when the applicant had an available statutory departmental appeal against the dismissal order but had not exhausted that remedy?

Whether the Tribunal should examine the legality of the inquiry report and dismissal order on merits at the first instance, despite the applicant’s failure to invoke the appellate remedy?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, while applying the principle that a litigant should ordinarily exhaust an efficacious alternative statutory remedy before invoking judicial review.

It relied on State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., (2022) Supreme (SC) 948, where the Supreme Court held that courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining proceedings when a statutory appeal is available, absent exceptional circumstances such as a challenge to the vires of the statute, breach of natural justice, or an otherwise inadequate remedy.

The Tribunal also relied on Sitaram Vishwakarma v. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, (2012) 8 ADJ 574 (DB), holding that the availability of an appellate remedy justifies relegating the litigant to that remedy and that the appellate authority generally has a wider scope of jurisdiction.

The right of appeal was treated as a substantive right, and the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 were recognised as providing the relevant departmental appellate mechanism.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been expressly granted an opportunity to prefer an appeal within 45 days against the dismissal order but had bypassed that remedy and directly filed the Original Application.

Applying the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, the Tribunal held that judicial prudence required the applicant first to approach the competent appellate authority. No exceptional circumstance was identified that justified immediate intervention, and the Tribunal therefore declined to examine the applicant’s challenges to the inquiry report, disciplinary proceedings, or proportionality of punishment on merits.

The Tribunal further observed that the appellate authority possessed a wider scope of jurisdiction and that relegating the applicant to that remedy would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted liberty to the applicant to file an appeal or pursue other remedies available under the applicable Rules within four weeks from the date of the order.

If filed within that period, the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits, in accordance with law, without raising any objection regarding limitation, within a further period of three months.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings or the applicant’s dismissal.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.