AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
This application is filed challenging an order dated 11.08.2020 through which the applicant was retired on compulsory basis in exercise of power under clause (j)(i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.
On behalf of the respondents, MA is filed raising an objection as to the maintainability mainly on the ground that the applicant did not exhaust the remedy of appeal.
We heard Sh. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.
It is no doubt true that the applicant does not exist the remedy of appeal under clause 56 (j). However, there exists a remedy of review and we have taken the view in several cases that before challenging an order passed under FR 56 (j), one has to exhaust the remedy of revision. That would be a better forum where the committee would examine the various records.
We, therefore, dispose of the OA leaving it open to the applicant to avail the remedy of revision against the impugned order. If it is made within four weeks from today, it shall be disposed of within two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.