Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chand Batham vs General Manager on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925
1 WP-8648-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8648 of 2016
RAMESH CHAND BATHAM
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking for following reliefs :-
"i. Orders vide Annexure P-2 dated 31-12- 2008, Annexure P-1 dated 06-04-2009 may kindly be quashed and petitioner may kindly be allowed to get consequential benefit.
ii. Respondents may kindly be directed to allow to permit to work to petitioner as per postings.
iii. Cost of petition may kindly be allowed."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Single Window Operator in Viaypur Branch of State Bank of Indore. During the period of 2006-07 a complaint has been filed by certain persons with regard to illegal withdrawal of amount from their accounts. Thereafter, petitioner has been suspended and subsequently a charge-sheet Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 2 WP-8648-2016 has been issued and thereafter enquiry has been conducted by Enquiry Officer and thereafter Disciplinary Authority has issued show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to show cause notice. Without considering the reply of petitioner, punishment order dated 31.12.2008 has been issued by respondents by which petitioner has been removed from service. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a detailed appeal before Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has also not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal and by non-speaking an unreasoned order appeal has been rejected by Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner has an efficacious, adequate alternative statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions of law. To strengthen his plea, learned counsel for respondents relied upon order dated 17.05.2017 passed in W.P. No. 3479/2005 (Jitendra Kumar v. State of M.P. and Others). Thus, it is submitted that this Court had directed petitioners to verify as to whether the present case is covered by the order passed in Jitendra Kumar (supra) or not? However, without exhausting such remedy, petitioner has directly approached this Court. Hence, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy alone.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 3 WP-8648-2016 can dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy or not?
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and another , reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 has held as under:
"37. We have given most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. So far as preliminary objection raised by the Corporation before the High Court is concerned, in our considered view, the same was well founded and ought to have been upheld. It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the Corporation and the State Government that the writ petition was premature inasmuch as no retrenchment had been affected. Several disputed questions of fact were involved in the petition. If the contention of the Samiti was that there was illegal closure of undertaking or there was non-payment of wages by the employer, appropriate proceedings could have been initiated under industrial law. In fact, one of the Judges of the Division Bench upheld the contention and observed that the employees could have claimed closure compensation under Section 25- FFF of the Act or could have approached prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act relying upon Section 33-C(2) of the Act or Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The other Single Judge of the Division Bench, however, held that the writ petition had been entertained and interim orders were also passed. Relying upon Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331], the learned Judge held that "the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy if the same has been entertained and interim order has been passed".
(emphasis supplied)
38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 4 WP-8648-2016 Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal". But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court. The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus:(Suresh Chandra Tewari case [AIR 1992 All 331], AIR p. 331) "2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed."
(emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 5 WP-8648-2016 of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another , reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1500 decided on 22.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8945/2019 has held as under:
"23. We now turn to the question whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition because of availability of adequate appellate remedy. The law on the point is very clear and was summarised in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal AIR (2014) 1 SCC 603] as under:--
"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 6 WP-8648-2016 [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131], Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 499])
12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission [AIR 1954 SC 207], Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [AIR 1955 SC 425], Union of India v. T.R. Varma [AIR 1957 SC 882], State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86] and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1089] have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted. [See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar [AIR 1959 SC 422], Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar [AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653], Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [(1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133], S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan [(1988) 1 SCC 572], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110], Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [(2000) 7 SCC 695], L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 634], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 7 WP-8648-2016 Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 7 SCC 484 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO21 [(2003) 1 SCC 72]] ...
15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
24. Recently, in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], the principles laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] were reiterated as under:
"The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 8 WP-8648-2016 Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]..."
25. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the High Court in refusing to entertain the Writ Petition. The submission that once the threshold was crossed despite the preliminary objection being raised, the High Court ought not to have considered the issue regarding alternate remedy, may not be correct. The first order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court did record the preliminary objection but was prima facie of the view that the transactions defined in Section 115QA were initially confined only to those covered by Section 77A of the Companies Act. Therefore, without rejecting the preliminary objection, notice was issued in the matter. The subsequent order undoubtedly made the earlier interim order absolute. However, the preliminary objection having not been dealt with and disposed of, the matter was still at large.
26. In State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti [(2008) 12 SCC 675] this Court dealt with an issue whether after admission, the Writ Petition could not be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The submission was considered by this Court as under:
"38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal". But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court.The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus:
(Suresh Chandra Tewari case, AIR p. 331) "2. At the time of hearing of this petition a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 9 WP-8648-2016 threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed."
(emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner.
27. We do not, therefore, find any error in the approach of and conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is relevant to mention that the concessions given on behalf of the Revenue as recorded in the directions issued by the High Court also take care of matters of prejudice, if any. Consequently, the appellant, as a matter of fact, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 10 WP-8648-2016 will have a fuller, adequate and efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority.
28. Certain issues raised during the course of hearing touching upon the aspects whether the appellant is liable under Section 115QA of the Act or whether the transaction of buy back of shares in the present matter would come within the statutory contours of said Section 115QA or not, are issues which will be gone into at the appropriate stages by the concerned authorities; and as such we have refrained from dealing with those issues."
8 . By placing reliance on the order dated 17.05.2017 passed in W.P. No. 3479/2005 (Jitendra Kumar v. State of M.P. and Others), the respondents raised the issue of availability of an alternative remedy. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jintendra Kumar Supra has held as under for ready reference and convenience:
After arguing for some time, Shri M.P. Agarwal submits that in the writ appeal No. 36/12 (State Bank of India and Ors Vs. Vikram Sharma) vide judgment dated 19.07.2012 Division Bench of this High Court has held that respondent employee working in a clerical cadre is amenable to the jurisdiction of Industrial Dispute Act and he has liberty to raise Industrial dispute in accordance with the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
In view of this submission, Shri B.B. Shukla fairly submits that this writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach machinery under the Industrial Dispute Act for adjudication of his grievance and a direction be issued to the concerned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 11 WP-8648-2016 labour Court to adjudicate this dispute within a time bound manner.
Shri M.P. Agarwal has no objection to such prayer being granted.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty in favour of petitioner to raise the dispute of his termination and any other dispute associated with order of termination before CGIT within two months from today under the Provision contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and CGIT shall make an endeavor to decide the dispute within a further period of six months from the date of receiving the dispute. It is made clear that if parties so desire, they can use the pleadings advanced before this Court, before the CGIT so to cutshort the time for adjudication of the dispute inasmuch as petition, return and additional return are on record.
It is also clarified that issue of limitation shall not come in the way of the petitioner as this Court at the request of Bank has relegated him to avail the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act.
9. Under these circumstances, it is clear that even if petition has been pending since 2016, still it can be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on W.A. No.240/2018 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another vs. Kailash Chandra where petition was not relegated back due to availability of alternative remedy but the facts of W.A. 240/2018 is different as in that petition there was no disputed question of facts involved. Learned counsel for petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 12 WP-8648-2016 has not denied that petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the CGIT. Since multiple disputed questions of facts are involved, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition specifically when petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching CGIT.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise the dispute of his termination and any other dispute associated with order of termination/ Removal and Appeal rejection order before CGIT within period one month from today under the Provision contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and CGIT shall make an endeavor to decide the dispute within a further period of three months from the date of receiving the dispute by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law on merits of the case ignoring the delay, if any.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE "R"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM