1. Petitioner was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. In March, 1993 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. The allegation was that he was found sleeping while on duty. While the departmental enquiry was in progress he was again served with a memo of charge alleging that he was absent from regimental duty without permission. Third respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. One Naik T.M. Nair acted as the defence assistant of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. Petitioner alleges that, during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, the 3rd respondent and the Deputy Commandant B.M. Tiwari sought assistance of the petitioner in filing a complaint against Naik T.M. Nair. Petitioner was not willing to depose any falsehood. He was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings and penalty was imposed on him. The suspension was revoked with effect from 21st July 1993. Again on 22nd July 1993 petitioner was placed under suspension alleging that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently made a medical advice chit by forging the signature of an Assistant Medical Officer attached to C.P.T. Hospital. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 24th June 1993, A.S.I. Surender Lal and H.G /G.D. P. Unnikrishnan found the petitioner with unshaven face. On seeing the petitioner, they asked why he had not shaven his face and growing beard. It is alleged that he had got shaving excuse from Dr. Joy of the C.P.T. Hospital. They demanded certificate from the petitioner and the petitioner gave them a chit stating that it was issued by the said Doctor. It is alleged that the chit produced by the petitioner was found to be forged one and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner was served with a memo of charge alleging that he produced a false chit alleging that it was issued by Dr. Joy and that the chit was false and it was produced with a view to cheat his superiors. One V. Jayadhar, Inspector of the C.I.S.F. was appointed as the enquiry officer. Enquiry was partly conducted by V. Jayadhar. Later, Jayadhar was detailed for internal security duty and in his place 3rd respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. Petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent was enmically disposed towards him and, therefore, he shall not be the enquiry officer. Petitioner also alleges that the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to give up his defence assistant Naik T. M. Nair. Petitioner further alleges that Naik T.M. Nair was told not to act as defence assistant to the petitioner. The enquiry continued and the petitioner was found guilty. He was imposed with a punishment of reduction of his pay by two stages. Petitioner then filed appeal before the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General C.I.S.F., Southern Zone. The 2nd respondent on receiving the appeal issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the penalty shall not be enhanced to that of removal from service. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and after hearing the appeal, by Ext. P39 order, the proposal to remove him from service was confirmed and the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. Petitioner challenges Ext. P34 enquiry report, Ext. P-36 the first order of punishment by the initial authority and Ext. P-39 the appellate order.

2. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4. The allegations in the Original Petition are denied. It is contended that the Original Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal against the order of removal to the next higher authority, namely, Inspector General, South West Sector, C.I.S.F., Bombay as provided under R.42 of C.I.S.F. Rules. It is submitted that an appeal would lie against Ext. P-39 order. It is also pointed out that even alter exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal against Ext. P-39, the petitioner can file a