IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1094 of 2010 Kumar Sharad ….Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. …Respondents. Present : Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner is an employee of Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Admittedly the rules applicable to the service condition of the petitioner are Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (from hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules. The petitioner has been suspended from service by invoking sub- rule (2) of Rule 10 of 1965 Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Section 10 of 1965 Rules reads as follows :- “10. Suspension (1) …. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority – (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty- eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. Explanation. – The period of forty-eight hours referred to in Clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.” 2 The counsel representing the Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Sri Vikas Pande, on the other hand, says that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy inasmuch as under Rule 23 (i) of 1965 Rules, the petitioner has a remedy to appeal before the Managing Director. Rule 23 (i) of 1965 Rules reads as follows :- “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) … (iii) … (iv) … (v) … (vi) …” Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that he had already moved an application for revocation of the suspension order which is pending before the Managing Director. Needless to say that both these remedies are separate remedies. Since there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner for filing an appeal under Section 23 (i) of 1965 Rules which is not denied by the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and is hereby dismissed. It is hoped and expected that in case an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the concerned authority shall consider the fact of the pendency of this writ petition before this Court, while considering the delay in filing of the appeal. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.7.2011 Avneet