COMMISSIONER OF SERICULTURE Vs. A NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ petition itself was heard finally and the same is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) This writ petition is preferred by the Commissioner of Sericulture, Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation (Sericulture) Department calling in question the legality and validity of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 12-9-2002 in O.A.No. 7913 of 2002. The above O.A. was preferred by the 1st respondent herein. After holding a regular departmental enquiry against the 1st respondent, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him on the basis of a proved misconduct, as a disciplinary measure. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent preferred the above O.A. before the Tribunal questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding and the resultant disciplinary action taken against him. By the impugned order which is styled as interim order, the learned Tribunal directed the 1st respondent to exhaust alternative remedy of appeal granting him a week's time to do so. The learned Tribunal further directed the 1st respondent in the O.A. namely the Commissioner of Sericulture to pass appropriate orders on such appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that under the CCA Rules, the appellate authority is not the 1st appellant but the 2nd appellant herein and, the mistake thus crept in the impugned order was subsequently rectified at the instance of the 1st respondent. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that accordingly the 1st respondent preferred an appeal to the Government and the same is pending.

(3.) It is quite curious and surprising that the learned Tribunal while directing the 1st respondent-delinquent to avail of appeal remedy under the CCCA Rules, directed that the impugned order thereby meaning the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the 1st respondent- delinquent imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement should be suspended pending disposal of the O.A. With respect, we are constrained to observe that this kind of order made by the learned Tribunal was totally unwarranted and unjustified. It is totally improper on the part of the Tribunal or the Court without examining the merits of the allegations and contentions raised in the application casually to pass the interim order suspending the disciplinary action taken against a delinquent employee on the proved misconduct. Added to this, in the present case, the learned Tribunal having opined that in the first instance the delinquent should avail of the remedy of appeal ought to have disposed of the main O.A. itself. But, for the reasons unknown to us and not disclosed in the impugned order, the O.A. is kept pending and the impugned order styled as interim order is passed. Such procedure is unknown to law. If a reviewing Court or Tribunal is not inclined to entertain an application or a petition instituted before it on the ground of non-exhaustion of an alternative remedy/remedies, the Court should decline to entertain the application and direct the applicant to avail of statutory or other alternative remedies in the first instance. Such a healthy and appropriate procedure which is normally followed by the Constitutional Courts was given a go by by the learned Tribunal.