The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order must align with the directions of the higher court and that the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, especially after a significant period.

1. The petitioner was working as a Lance Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that in the night of 19.3.1988, petitioner allegedly beat up a Constable with lathi lor which, after a departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service treating it to be a gross misconduct and a gross indiscipline by order dated 29.2.1989. Petitioner challenged his dismissal order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Writ Petition No. 11688 of 1989 (Annexure-2), after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition with certain directions on or about 9.11.1994. Against this the respondents preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 133 of 1995 which was dismissed in limine on 23.2.1995. Thus, the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court attained finality. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, inter alia, set aside the order of dismissal with liberty to pass fresh order with certain observations and directions. Authorities passed a de novo order. Petitioner, since his dismissal, had come back to his native village in Bihar and was residing there. On de novo fresh orders being passed the same was communicated by letter dated 13th April, 1995 to the petitioner at his Village-Pandooi in the district of Jehanabad in this State (Annexure-3). Being aggrieved by the or- der, as passed and communicated to the petitioner at Village-Pandooi in the district of Jehanabad, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 12282 of 1999 which was dismissed for default in appearance by the counsel on 22.6.2000. As there was no adjudication in the matter, stating the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Petitioners contention is simple and straightforward. He submits that even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the charge of beating a Constable was proved, the said Court was of the view that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate. It, accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal and passed orders as hereunder:

".........I therefore set aside the order of removal and direct the Disciplinary authority (the first respondent) to consider de novo the aspect relating to the quantum of punishment to be imposed against the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper not to allow any back wages to the petitioner for the period during which he has been out of service. If a decision is taken to reinstate the petitioner by substituting some other punishment, the Disciplinary authority will pass appropriate orders with regard to the continuity of service, increments, etc. in respect of the intervening period. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs."

3. Petitioner submits that what the High Court had ordered was that the matter of punishment be reconsidered, dismissal being disproportionately high, High Court gave 2 further directions, (1) petitioner would not be entitled to back wages for the period he remained dismissed, and (2) which is most important is that if the authorities decide to reinstate the peti- tioner then they will have to pass orders for continuity of service, increment etc. in respect of the intervening period. But what the authorities have done by the impugned de novo order is that the period of dismissal has been treated as break-in-service, deprived petitioner of promotion and other pecuniary benefits which is in teeth of the High Courts order. This is basically the petitioners grievance. On the other hand, Shri Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the writ petition is not maintainable by this Court and secondly there being statutory appellate remedies available, this Court should not interfere though on merits, he very fairly finds it difficult to defend the order.

4. Coming to the objection with regard to