IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy exists before a specialized tribunal, emphasizing the need to respect statutory forums.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge directing the 5th respondent to issue orders to discharge the 1st respondent. The learned Deputy Solicitor General has raised a specific contention that the writ petition was not maintainable before this Court since the Constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 provided an efficacious alternate remedy to the writ petitioner and that the writ petition filed without availing the said remedy, is not maintainable before this Court.

2. The learned DSGI places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 337 to contend that when a statutory forum is specifically created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring statutory dispensation. The decision in Union of India and Others v. P.S. Gill, 2019 SCC Online SC 1519 is also relied on to contend that where an Act confers jurisdiction over service matters of Army personnel on the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Constitutional Courts should adopt an interpretation, which confers jurisdiction rather than an interpretation, which takes away such jurisdiction. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Lieutenant Colonel Dharamvir Singh, (2019) 15 SCC 793 as well as of the decisions of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Colonel Akhil Mendhe v. Union of India and Others, (2022) 3 MPLJ 435, High Court of Bombay in Col. Bhupesh Joshi v. Union of India an Others, 2021 SCC Online Bom 8355, High Court of Delhi in Hav. Sham Dass v. Union of India and Others, 2018 SCC Online Del 12326) and of the Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Chand Ex-Lnk/CI v. Union of India and others, 2014 SCC Online All 7841 are also relied on by the DSGI in support of his contention.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contends that the remedy available to the 1st respondent being before the AFT and CAT, it was only just and expedient that the High Court consider this writ petition since both the AFT as well as CAT are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.

4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and the interpretation placed on the Supreme Court on Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 as followed by various High Courts, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned DSGI that the writ petitioner would have to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, which is a specialised Tribunal specifically empowered to consider service disputes of Armed Forces Personnel, before approaching this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in judicial review, is liable to be accepted. We are of the opinion that the judgment of learned Single Judge directing discharge of the writ petitioner, was not warranted in view of the fact that the question of maintainability was specifically raised.

5. We, therefore, order this writ appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as it considered the question of discharge of the writ petitioner.

6. The 1st respondent shall approach the AFT for consideration of the question of discharge. However, the interim order of this Court directing the 2nd respondent in the writ petition to keep a post of Deputy Field Officer vacant in the Establishment of Cabinet Secretariat, shall stand extended for a period of three months. If the AFT is approached without delay, the AFT shall endevour to see that the OA is disposed of within the said period of three months.