\\a-) HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BIb^SPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JA6&ISH BHALLA, Ag C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. A6NIHOTM. J. Writ Pctition No. 1S80 <rf 2002 Petitioner Kalam Sai Chouhan, Bx Offic®6u<rd, R/o Pathalgaon, Distt Raigarh (C©) Resoondents Verwjs 1. The Hon'ble Chairmcm throtgh its Regjstrar, AAP State Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur (MP) 2. State of (MP) Chhattisgarh, throt^h Secretary Forest Depcrtment, &K Bhawan Raipur (C6) 3. The Dtvjsiotial Porest Officer, Rai9arh Forest Division, Rai9arh (C©) 4. Shri SR Dubey, Enquiry Officer dnd Deputy Divistonal Forest Officer, Rai9<u4t (C©) WHt petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India Pr Shri Vidinu Koshta, counsel for the petitiorwr. Shri &.D. Waswoni, eovernment Advocate foi* the State. ORAL OR&ER (Passed on 22nd Novembcr/2007) The followin9 order of the Court was pa^ed by Honlile Jegdish Bhalla.Ag C.J. "Hiis writ petjt'ion arises out of the order dated 15-04-2002 passed by the Mcrihyo Pradesh State Administpdrt-ive Tribunat, wher^by the learned Tribunal has djsmis^d the cldm of the petitioner. The petitioner was conipulsorily retired as a measure of punishnient md the aame was challen9ed by the petitioner before the learned Tribund. The le<rr»Bd Tribunal after hearir^ llie parties came to 'rtie cowtusiort ttiat 1+iere WM an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, however/ the Tribunal further considered the merit of claini petition A thereafter dismissed the claim petltion. A99rieved by the same, this petition was filed. Learned coureel for the petitionw wbniits that since the Trit%iml has come to the conclusion that there id an altemative reniedy wailebte to the petitioner, there was no reason left with the Tribunal to give orders on merit and, therefore, the Tribunal failed in its administrcrt'toti of justic®. It was further contended that it would have beeii <3ppr<yriate forthe Tribunal to di^miss the petition only on the 9roynd of mailcbiltty of altemative remedy. It has been firt+iw contended by learned cmiiiwl for Itie petltioner that Ifie qiKxntim of pwiidiment is too hcrsh and excessive, HoKrevw, leamed counset fcttled to address the Cburt on thte 9roimd. The ^jdgnient of the Tribunal is a reasoned Jud9ment and the pynishment of c<wipulsory retirement due to vcrious chcu^es has been rlJ9htly upheld. In the ti9ht of above, we do iwt sce ony reasonable ground to show interference in the ordw passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, tfae writ petition 'is dismissed. —-—— Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge