JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the charge-sheets dated 11.1.1999 and 6.9.2001 which have been served upon the petitioner (copy filed as Annexures-3 and 9 to the writ petition). Another prayer made is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal Secretary.
2. The petitioner joined Provincial Civil Service of the State of U. P. and became a member of Indian Administrative Service in 1994. He was posted as Additional Director (Administration) in Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, from 19.7.1989 to 28.7.1991. The charge-sheets have been issued alleging that he conducted some acts of misconduct during the period he was posted as Additional Director (Administration) in the Mandi Parishad.
3. Section 14(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all the Jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts, except the Supreme Court, in relation to all service matters concerning a member of any All India Service. Therefore the petitioner has an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal for redress of his grievances and the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Sri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior advocate, has submitted that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should not relegate the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy. There is no dispute that existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But as a matter of discretion, normally this Court does not entertain a writ petition if the party has not availed of the alternative remedy which has been provided by the Statute. However, with regard to the service matters concerning a member of All India Service, it is absolutely mandatory to first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the mandate of the decision rendered in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, wherein a Bench of seven Hon'ble Judges held as under in Para 99 of the reports :
............"The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated."
In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, it is not open to the petitioner to directly approach the High Court and he must first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. Sri Yogeshwar Prasad has submitted that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheets served upon him relates to the period when he was a member of the State service and had not been promoted to Indian Administrative Service and, therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance. The expression used in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 is that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise all jurisdiction, powers and authority in relation to all service matters concerning a member of any All India Service (emphasis supplied). The language used is absolutely clear and it shows that any service matter relating to a member of All India Service can be decided by the Tribunal. The section does not say that the dispute must relate to the service rendered in the capacity of a member of AH India Service. If the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it will lead to uncertainty and complication. A person joining the State service may be promoted to All India Service and may thereafter raise a dispute regarding the correctness of the entry of the date of birth in his service book. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in such a case though the effect of accepting the plea would result in his further continuance in the All India Service. A person may have committed an act of misconduct on the date he is promoted to All India Service and just a day before when he was a member of the State service. If he is punished in disciplinary proceedings, he will have to challenge the same both in the State Public Service Tribunal and also in Central Administrative Tribunal. If the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to queer results. It may also be pointed out here that in the charge-sheets served upon the petitioner, it is alleged that his conduct was contrary to Rule 3 (1) (ii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. He is not alleged to have contravened the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the petitioner must first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed summarily without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.