HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Writ Petition No.26571 of 2005 Date: 30-9-2011 Between M.Seenappa … Petitioner and The Central Reserve Police Force, Rep. by its Director General, New Delhi and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Writ Petition No.26571 of 2005 Order: Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 08-4-2005 vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal from service was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’), Ranga Reddy district, the 2nd respondent herein. 2. Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. As far as the first charge is concerned, the petitioner could not report for roll-call at about 1700 hrs., on 04-8-2004 because he had met with an accident. As far as the second charge is concerned, the learned counsel submits that as a result of the said accident, the petitioner received injuries on his face and forehead and the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was found lying unconscious in a state of intoxication is absolutely wrong and imposed the punishment of removal from service. The learned counsel further submits that no medical evidence has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was in an intoxicate condition. 3. Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, however, submits that against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing a revision before the higher authority under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of filing the revision, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner could have filed a revision before the higher authority under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent before the revisional authority. As the petitioner has been pursuing his case in this Court by filing the present writ petition, the revisional authority shall take a lenient view as far as the delay in filing the revision against the impugned order is concerned. The petitioner may raise all the points as raised in the present writ petition before the revisional authority. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 30th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Writ Petition No.26571 of 2005 30th September, 2011. (Ak)