A court may exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a show cause notice when the alternative statutory remedy before a tribunal is temporarily inaccessible due to the lack of a presiding officer, while directing the petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies first.

JUDGMENT

Above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 show cause notice and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Petitioner is serving in Indian Air Force, posted at 7^th respondent, and is now on leave. While the petitioner was posted at 7^th respondent, a court of inquiry was initiated at the 6^th respondent for the period from 23.06.2025 and subsequent days to inquire into the circumstances under which some air warriors were found involved in corruption/malpractices and procedural lapses at LP cell of 6^th respondent logistics section. The court of inquiry proceedings were concluded on 14.11.2025 and the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 30.04.2025 to show cause as to why further action should not be taken pursuant to the court of inquiry proceedings.

It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Essential contention raised by the petitioner is that he has not given a copy of the court of inquiry and going by Rule 156(7) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, he is entitled for a copy of the same. Petitioner would further submit that the confession statement of Cpl GS Thakur mentioned in Ext.P3 cannot be accepted inasmuch as he is undergoing psychiatric evaluation at the 8^th respondent at the time of court of inquiry proceedings. Petitioner submits that he is not involved in the allegations, which led to the issuance of Ext.P3 show cause notice.

4. To a pointed question put by the Court as to whether a writ petition is maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench, petitioner would submit that there is no Presiding Officer appointed and therefore, he could not avail the said remedy available.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that it is true that a Presiding Officer is not appointed yet, though sittings are conducted by Presiding Officers of other Tribunals, but admitted that the petitioner might find it difficult to move a proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal for obtaining an urgent order of stay in the matter. Learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that since the proceedings have been initiated by the 6^th respondent while the petitioner was working at 7^th respondent, his remedy is to approach the competent High Court having jurisdiction over respondents 6 and 7. To which the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Kerala, Karnataka and Lakshadweep fall under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench and that the petitioner would have moved the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi, but could not for the reason that there is no proper sitting in the Tribunal at Kochi.

6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

7. Ext.P3 is a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service for the alleged misconduct. In Ext.P3, it is also stated that the proceedings are kept with the Adjt, ASTE and the petitioner is free to inspect the same for preparing the reply to the show cause notice. So, Ext.P3 gives a chance for the petitioner to peruse the documents so that he could file a proper reply to Ext.P3.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner could file a reply to the show cause notice, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(i) Petitioner shall file a reply to Ext.P3 show cause notice within a period of three weeks from today.

(ii) After considering the reply and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, appropriate decision shall be taken pursuant to Ext.P3 show cause notice, within a per