The petitioner, while working as Constable in the CISF Unit, NMPT, Mangalore was proceeded against in respect of some misconduct, issuing Ext .P1 charge sheet. A detailed enquiry was conducted as contemplated under the relevant rules and the petitioner was served with a copy of the Enquiry Report vide Ext. P3, wherein he was found guilty. The petitioner sought to substantiate his innocence by filing Ext.P4 explanation. After considering the same, penalty of 'compulsory retirement' was imposed upon the petitioner as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the fourth respondent/Group Commandant. Being aggrieved of the course and events, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the third respondent/Deputy Inspector General. But the same did not turn to be fruitful and it was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 15.01.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents disputing the facts and figures pleaded by the petitioner; also contending that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, in so far as 'Revision Petition' will lie before the first respondent/Director General by virtue of Section 9(2B) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued and finalised against the petitioner are per se wrong and illegal in all respects, as there is violation of the principles of natural justice and that the statutory requirements have not been complied with. There is a further contention that the actual facts and figures forming part of the records have not been looked into and that there was no proper application of mind as well. The learned Counsel further submits that the writ petition was admitted as early as on 07.04.2010 and as such, it is not proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy at this distance of time. The learned Counsel also submits that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is also not proportionate with the gravity of the misconduct.
4. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that existence of alternate remedy was known to the petitioner and that the same was specifically pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed on 30.08.2010 and that the nature of the contentions taken by the petitioner is not liable to be subjected to scrutiny at the hands of this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the version of the petitioner that he might not be relegated to avail the alternative remedy at this distance of time, after admitting the writ petition and its pendency for quite long does not appear to be attractive in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in State of UP vs. UP Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam [(2008) 12 SCC 675]. That apart, taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that the actual materials forming part of the records will have to be looked into, for arriving at the conclusion, which could be done by the departmental authorities. The scope of probe/scrutiny by this Court is limited in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to avail the revisional jurisdiction and to pursue the matter accordingly. It is true that revisional remedy had to be pursued within six months. Since Ext.P7 order was passed only on 15.01.2010 and the petitioner had approached this Court as early as on 06.04.2010, the period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court has to be given credit to, while computing the period of limitation in connection with filing of Revision as well. The petitioner is set at liberty to file proper Revision Petition before the first respondent/Director General within 'three weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be treated as valid Revision Petition and it shall be considered on merits. Appropriate orders shall be passed with reference to the materials on record and in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of filing of the Revision Petition.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk