Writ jurisdiction is declined where disciplinary disputes are amenable to the Section 55(2) statutory remedy.

The petitioner, Umashankar Tiwari, an Assistant Accountant and then In-Charge Branch Manager of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Chandrapur, was suspended and subsequently retired.

He challenged the punishment order dated 29 June 2026 issued by the Bank, whereby his pay scale was reduced pursuant to his demotion and he was directed to deposit ₹4,63,101 within 15 days.

The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and could also invoke Rule 65 of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva Niyam.

The petitioner disputed the applicability of these remedies but was unable to substantiate his objections.

Whether the writ petition challenging the punishment order was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?

Whether the dispute concerning reduction of pay scale, demotion, and recovery of money constituted a dispute relating to the terms of employment, working conditions, or disciplinary action under Section 55(2) of the Act?

Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides that a dispute between a co-operative society and its employee, including disputes concerning terms of employment, working conditions, or disciplinary action, shall be decided by the Registrar or an officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, whose decision is binding on the society and its employees.

The provision requires that the dispute be presented within thirty days from the date of the impugned order, excluding the time required for obtaining a copy of the order.

The Court also noted the alternative remedy of filing an application or appeal under Rule 65 of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva Niyam.

The governing principle applied was that the High Court ordinarily should not exercise its writ jurisdiction where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

The Court treated the petitioner’s challenge to the punishment order as a dispute arising from his employment and disciplinary consequences.

The reduction of pay scale following demotion and the consequential recovery direction were held to fall within the scope of employment conditions and disciplinary action contemplated by Section 55(2).

Since the petitioner could raise the dispute before the jurisdictional Registrar or competent authority under the statutory mechanism, the Court found that an efficacious alternative remedy was available.

The petitioner’s contention that Section 55(2) and Rule 65 were inapplicable was not substantiated, and no exceptional circumstance was identified warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the alternate remedy.

The writ petition challenging the punishment order dated 29 June 2026 was accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner was granted liberty to avail any other remedy available under law.