Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R.Ganesan, a Salesman with TASMAC, was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence from December 2010. He claimed he suffered from jaundice and underwent native treatment, but could not produce medical evidence. The disciplinary authority dismissed him, and the appellate authority confirmed the order. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging both orders. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC, which he had not availed. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The court observed that the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Managing Director within 30 days. The court also directed that if such an appeal is filed, the Managing Director shall consider it on merits and pass orders within 12 weeks, without reference to limitation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court held that when an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The petitioner was dismissed for unauthorised absence and had not exhausted the appellate remedy before the Managing Director, TASMAC. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal order is maintainable when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC, Chennai, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, the Managing Director shall consider it on merits and pass orders within 12 weeks, without reference to limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- maintainability of writ petition
- unauthorised absence
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 331
W.P.No.39594 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mr.T.Dharani for Mr.M.C.Govindan (for petitioner), Mr.M.Sekar, Standing Counsel (for respondents)
1. The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Coimbatore. 2. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Erode District.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging dismissal from service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of dismissal order dated 10.08.2015 and appellate order dated 07.10.2015, and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence from December 2010, allegedly due to jaundice, but could not produce medical evidence.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary authority dismissed petitioner by order dated 10.08.2015; appellate authority confirmed by order dated 07.10.2015.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that absence was due to jaundice and native treatment, and that disciplinary proceedings were conducted without proper opportunity.
Respondents argued that petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC, and that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal, especially when the appellate authority is not shown to be biased or incompetent.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would stoutly oppose the said contention and submit that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC, Chennai, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merits. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Managing Director, TASMAC, Chennai, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
The petitioner was dismissed from service by the second respondent on 10.08.2015. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the first respondent on 07.10.2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 30.11.2015 challenging both orders.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
