SMT K SUBHASHINI v. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI

-3-

Tribunal challenging the impugned order, inter-alia, on the ground that penalty has been imposed upon her without holding any detailed enquiry thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

3. The respondents by way of filing a joint short reply have joined the defence and have opposed the applicant's claim. They submit that the Original Application, in its present form, is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to avail the departmental remedy of appeal against the impugned order available to her under the CCS-CCA Rules before the competent authority. No rejoinder to controvert the said fact, has been filed by the applicant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Admittedly, the applicant has not filed any appeal against the impugned order, Annexure A-5, yet she claims in para 6 of the O.A. that she has availed of all the remedies available to her under relevant service rules. Rule 23 of the CCS-CCA Rules, provides as under:-

23. Orders against which appeal lies

Subject to the provisions of rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely:-

(i) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under rule 10;

(ii) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 11, whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or revising authority;

-4-

A perusal of Rule 23 of CCS-CCA Rules makes it clear that an appeal is maintainable against any of the penalties imposed under Rule 11 of the CCS-CCA Rules. It is also not in dispute that the minor penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay imposed upon applicant is one of the penalties provided in Rule 11 of the CCS-CCA Rules. Thus, the applicant, before filing the present Original Application, was required to file an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCS-CCA Rules before the Appellate Authority.

6. Since, an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order, therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 the Original Application cannot be entertained. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 reads as under:-

"A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed for all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances." 7. The language of the Section 20 (1) is very clear that availing of an alternative remedy under the relevant

service rules is mandatory unless there are extra ordinary

circumstances for not doing so. In this case, no such

eventuality is brought to our notice for not filing an appeal against the impugned order and as such it is clear that the present Original Application is not maintainable.

-5-

8. In the conspectus of discussions made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the applicant is required to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority where she has liberty to raise all the relevant contentions in support of her claim in the first instance and only then she can approach this Tribunal for redressal of her grievance.

9. The Original Application is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority as pointed out by the respondents in their reply statement. If such an appeal is filed by the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be disposed of by the appellate authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter without raising any plea of limitation.

10. Ordered accordingly.

11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

HC*