Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the Union of India that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision before the superior authority as provided in Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules reads as follows :

“54. Revision. – (1) Any authority superior to the authority making the order may either on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules, and may –

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or

(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such order as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised.

Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the enrolled member of the Force concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if any, inquiry under rule 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the aforesaid rules.

(2) The provisions of rule 52 relating to appeals shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision.

(3) Orders and instructions issued by the Central Government on this subject from time to time shall be applicable mutatis mutandis as applicable under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965].

3. However, this writ petition was admitted in the year 2003. Pleadings are complete and matter is before this Court for final hearing. Although normally such matters have to be sent to the statutory authorities where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, yet in the present case when the entire pleadings have been exchanged and the matter is pending before this Court for the last six years, it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the petition on ground of alternative remedy. Therefore, the petition is decided on its merit.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.A. Khan as well as Standing Counsel for the Union of India Ms. Anjali Bhargava.

5. The petitioner is a constable in a para-military force, namely, Central Industrial Security Force. On 20.6.2002 when the petitioner was on duty at H.M.T., Ranibagh, Nainital, it was alleged that he indulged in a scuffle or “mar peet” with his superior officer who was a Sub-Inspector and did not obey his command. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after giving him chargesheet, whereby three charges were levelled against the petitioner which are :

(1) That he refused to obey the orders of Sub-Inspector Som Pal Singh and did not bring the rifle as asked for. Thus, indulged in an indisciplinary act.

(2) He took up a fight with his superior officer, namely, Sub-Inspector Som Pal Singh and hit him with the belt, as a result of which Sub-Inspector Som Pal Singh sustained injuries in his head. Thus, he indulged in an indisciplinary act.

(3) He was suspended from service vide order dated 20.6.2002 and thereafter he was directed to be attached with the Headquarter Qasim Pur, Aligarh. All the same, the petitioner did not comply with the orders.

6. In the enquiry which was constitut