Allahabad High Court
MOHD. MUSTKEEMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable because an efficacious alternative remedy of revision exists under the applicable service regulations.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Mustkeem, challenged his dismissal from service by a disciplinary authority, a decision that was affirmed by an appellate authority. He filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking relief. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Regulation 69-A of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner did not rebut this objection. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non‑maintainability due to the availability of the alternative revision remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of revision under Regulation 69-A is available.
Legislation cited
- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 — s. Regulation 69-A
Subjects
- service dismissal
- disciplinary proceedings
- writ jurisdiction
- maintainability
- alternative remedy
- revision
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13942 of 2026
Mohd. Mustkeem
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditendra Singh, Mohd. Yaseen
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority, affirmed by the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by
the Appellate Authority, whereby he has been dismissed from service.
3. Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability
of the instant writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious
alternative statutory remedy of filing a revision under Regulation 69-A of
the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers)
Service Regulations, 1981.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not refuted the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
5. As such, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on
the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy of revision, as
mentioned above.
September 8, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…