IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.4908 of 2004 FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: D.A.Gopal, S/o. D.Asaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. CISF Type-II Quarter No. 15, Block No.20, NFC, ECIL Post, Hyderabad – 62. …Petitioner AND The Dy. Commandant (Admn), Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), ECIL Post, Hyderabad – 62. and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.4908 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner herein, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenges the disciplinary action taken against him, which was confirmed in appeal and thereafter in second appeal. In its counter affidavit, the CISF took an objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner had not availed the departmental remedy by way of a revision under Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (‘CISF Rules’, for brevity). As the matter pertains to disciplinary proceedings in a uniformed service and the scope of enquiry into the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of revision instead of seeking adjudication of the matter by this Court. Smt. C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the CISF, pointed out that the order in the Second Appeal was passed on 07.02.2004 and the petitioner, instead of availing the revisional remedy, approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. She contended that the petitioner should not be given the liberty to pursue the statutory remedy of revision at this stage. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner approached this Court challenging the proceedings dated 07.02.2004 amongst others, immediately thereafter, that is in March, 2004. There was no delay, whatsoever, on his part. In such circumstances, the period taken by the petitioner in pursuing the present Writ Petition would necessarily have to be excluded. Under Rule 54 (1)(a) of the CISF Rules, the revisional authority is required to pass orders within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised. If the period consumed by this Writ Petition is excluded, the petitioner would be well within limitation in seeking the alternate remedy of revision. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of a revision under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be dealt with by the revisional authority in accordance with Rules. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) September 11, 2009 Bvv