IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Writ Petition No. 14321 of 2004 Between: Sri S.P.Nishad, S/o. Late Ram Prasad …Petitioner AND The Sr.Commandant, CISF nit, Ministry of Home Affairs, NFC, ECIL Post, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No. 14321 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In this Writ Petition, he challenges the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed on him by proceedings dated 16.04.2004, which was confirmed in appeal by proceedings dated 05.07.2004. This Writ Petition was filed on 12.08.2004. In its counter affidavit, the CISF took a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedy of 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, which requires a high standard of discipline, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy of revision, as the scope for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited. Having an alternative and more efficacious remedy, the petitioner ought not to have filed the present Writ Petition. Smt. C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the CISF, contended that the petitioner should not be permitted to seek revision of the appellate order dated 05.07.2004 at this later stage. She further submitted that the petitioner had already retired from service and therefore, the matter should be laid at rest. I am not inclined to accept this submission inasmuch as there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the appellate order. As stated supra, the Writ Petition was filed in August 2004, challenging the appellate order dated 05.07.2004. As per Rule 54 (1)(a) of the CISF Rules, the revisional authority is empowered to pass orders in a revision, within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised. Notwithstanding the retirement of the petitioner from service, the fact remains that he was subjected to financial loss owing to the withholding of his increments. In any case, it is for him to canvass his grievance before the statutory authority. The said right cannot be rendered nugatory by the fact that the petitioner retired from service. Once the period consumed by this Writ Petition is excluded, the petitioner would be well within limitation in seeking the revision of the appellate order. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the revisional authority shall dispose of the same 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