Point of law : When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the entire records of 2nd Respondent dated 18.05.2016, whereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 28.03.3016 of the 3rd Respondent, whereunder imposing penalty “Compulsory Retirement” from Banks Services with retirement benefits against the Petitioner herein and set aside the same by declaring the same as cryptic order in nature and without any reasons for confirming the orders of the 3rd Respondent.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as single window operator (for short “SWO-A”) in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Vyra Branch, Khammam District vide proceedings dated 24.10.2011 issued by the respondents herein. As per the said appointment order, the petitioner herein had joined in Vyra Branch, Khammam District on 24.10.2011. Subsequently the petitioner herein was transferred from Vyra Branch Khammam district to Koyyalagudem Branch, Khammam District in the same capacity as SWO-A. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty as SWO-A at Koyyalagudem Branch.

3. While the petitioner was working in Koyyalagudem Branch, he was placed under suspension on the allegations of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he was working at Koyyalagudem Branch, by order dated 01.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 3 herein. After the petitioner was placed under suspension, the respondents herein have issued proceedings No. R.III/Gr.1/746 dated 12.02.2015 calling for explanation of the petitioner for the misconduct attributed to him. After submitting explanation, the respondents herein issued charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet No. R.III/Gr.1/864 dated 24.03.2015. The petitioner herein has submitted a detailed written statement denying the charges leveled against him, requested to exonerate from the charges. Instead of dropping the charges against the petitioner, the respondents herein issued a revised charge-sheet No. R.III/Gr.1/431 dated 26.08.2015 calling for the explanation from the petitioner to the revised charge-sheet. Accordingly the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the revised charge-sheet also. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents herein appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings Dated No. R.III/Gr.1/499 dated 08.05.2015 to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings by engaging the defense counsel and presented his case. As the enquiry is conducted in biased manner, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents has imposed penalty of Compulsory retirement from banks service with superannuation benefits vide order No. R.III/Gr.1/1038 dated 28.03.2016. The order is confirmed in appeal. As the order passed by respondent No. 2, who is appellate authority, is cryptic in nature and without considering the grounds urged by the petitioner in his appeal, on 15.06.2016 the petitioner filed review of the impugned order dated 18.05.2016. The order passed by respondent No. 2 is cryptic in nature and the same was passed without recording any reasons. Therefore, the said order is illegal, arbitrary and violataive of principles of natural justice.

4. Respondents filed counter denying all the material allegations while admitting about conduct of enquiry, finding the petitioner guilty and imposition of penalty. It is contended that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner at all times and passed the order by the Enquiry Officer strictly adhering to the principles and rules governing the enquiry. It is also contended that the remedy by way of “industrial dispute” is not exhausted by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, requested to dismiss the writ peti