THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5027 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 20.03.2009 and 16.10.2009 passed in O.A.No.945 of 2005 and R.A.No.16 of 2009 in O.A.No.945 of 2005 respectively, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Charge-man (Ammunition)-II in CNAI(V), was issued with a charge memo dated 06.07.1999 for submitting false LIC claim in respect of his family members for the charges mentioned therein. Based on the enquiry report dated 17.09.2002, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 06.05.2004 imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.06.2004 before the appellate authority, which in turn modified the said punishment with reduction of pay by two stages vide proceedings dated 07.02.2005, which were challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.945 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 20.03.2009 vide order impugned directing the revisional authority to dispose of the review petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from that date. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.A.No.16 of 2009 in O.A.No.945 of 2005 seeking to review the said order and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 16.10.2009. Aggrieved by both the said orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that vide letters dated 30.06.2009 and 16.07.2009, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief for CSO (P&A), HQ Eastern Naval Command, Visakahapatnam and the 5th respondent-the Controller, Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection NAD(PO), Visakhapatnam had advised the petitioner to resubmit his revision petition to the President of India being the Reviewing Authority. The petitioner without exhausting such remedy has approached this Court. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file a review petition before the Reviewing Authority seeking appropriate order, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:25.03.2010. sj