IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 21510 of 2004 Between: P.Venkateswarlu, Sr.Assistant (under Disciplinary proceedings) O/o. The Asst.Director of Agrl. @ Garla, Khammam District R/o.7-3- 191, Ricob Bazar, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture A.P.Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Director of Agrl., Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by 1st respondent in his proceedings No. VigI(2)78/2000, dt. 01-08-02 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages etc., by setting-a-side the order of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.7614/02, dt.14-09-04 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21510 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.Vig.I(2)78/2000, dated 01.08.2002, issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and back wages etc., by setting aside the order, dated 14.09.2004, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.7614 of 2002. 3. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondents are the respondents, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner has filed the said O.A., to declare the proceedings No.Vig.I(2)78/2000, dated 01.08.2002, issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. However, a direction to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, back-wages, etc., in addition to the relief sought for before the Tribunal, is also sought for, in the present writ petition. 5. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: - It appears, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner while he was in service and that, after conducting departmental enquiry, a major punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed by the disciplinary authority, which is no other than the Head of the department. Challenging the said order of dismissal, O.A.7614 of 2002 was filed. During the pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Government, as provided under Rule 34 of C.C.C.A Rules, 1991, (for brevity ‘the Rules’) which provides for an appeal for the delinquent employee, challenging the order passed by the Head of the department. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the said O.A., though a statutory appeal, as provided under the Rules, was filed, the said fact was, mistakenly, not brought to the notice of the Tribunal during adjudication of the said O.A., as a result, the Tribunal, oblivious of the fact that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was pending with the appellate authority, decided the matter on merits, and eventually dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that an appeal had been preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority during the pendency of the said O.A. Notwithstanding the said pendency, owing to non-furnishing of the information as regards the filing of the statutory appeal, before the appellate authority-Government, the Tribunal went into the merits of the case and decided the same finally. 8. As a matter of fact, when an efficacious alternative remedy, by way of statutory appeal, is available, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. In fact, the Tribunal cannot be faulted with in this regard, for the simple reason that the factum of filing the statutory appeal, before the appellate authority, was not brought to its notice. Had it been done so, the Tribunal, in all probability, would have disposed of the O.A., by allowing the petitioner to seek the redressal before the appellate authority only. 9. Though, in strict sense, it is not necessary, still, inasmuch as, the petitioner has opted to go for a statutory appeal, he cannot be permitted to continue the parallel proceedings; one is by way of prosecuting the statutory appeal and the other by way of prosecuting the O.A., before the Tribunal. 10. Furthermore, since the O.A., filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Tribunal, he lost his valuable right of filing a statutory appeal and if aggrieved thereby, also lost the chance of challenging the same before the Tribunal. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the statutory appeal, filed by the petitioner, is pending before the appellate authority, but not on merits. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 14.09.2004, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.7614 of 2002, with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy before the appellate authority. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture A.P. Hyderabad. 2. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam. 3. 2CCs to Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. 2CD copies