Writ intervention was declined for failure to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 October 2022 passed by the fourth respondent and the order dated 30 January 2025 passed by the second respondent, seeking quashing of the dismissal from service and consequential reinstatement with back wages and attendant benefits.

The disciplinary authority, identified by the Court as the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, had imposed the punishment of dismissal on the basis of charges held proved.

The petitioner had not preferred the available statutory appeal before the High Court.

Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal from service could be entertained when the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory appellate remedy?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file the statutory appeal notwithstanding the delay, with the merits to be considered by the appellate authority?

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not entertained where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, particularly an appeal against a disciplinary order, remains available.

Exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy is especially important where disputed facts, documents, and evidence require reconsideration by the appellate authority.

The petitioner directly invoked the writ jurisdiction to challenge the dismissal order without first filing the statutory appeal available before the High Court.

Since the disciplinary action was founded on charges held proved and the appellate authority could examine the disputed factual and evidentiary issues on the basis of the record, the Court held that the appellate remedy ought to be pursued first.

Accordingly, rather than examining the merits of the dismissal, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal and directed that the delay should not be raised as an impediment to its consideration.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal before the High Court within 30 days from receipt of the order.

If filed, the appeal was directed to be taken on file without reference to delay and decided on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

No costs were awarded.