Judgment S.Ali Ahmad, J. 1. The petitioner, who was a Senior Rakshak and posted at Garhara in the year 1972, has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure 1/3 (order of the Assistant Security Officer, respondent No. 3, dated the 16th of September, 1972 demoting him to the post of Rakshak for a period of two years), Annexure 1/5 (order of the Security Officer-respondent No. 2, removing him from service and Annexure 1/6 (Order of the Chief Security Officer-respondent No. 1, dated the 11th of June, 1973 dismissing his appeal and affirming the order of removal as passed by the security officer). 2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts for the decision of this applitcation are that the petitioner who was Senior Rakshak at the relevanh time and was posted at Garhara was served with charges dated the 14trs January, 1972 and was asked to show cause. The two charges as appea from Annexure 1 were that the petitioner on the 3rd of January, I976 at 22,50 hours committed pilferage of sugar from wagon No. W.R. 37402 while standing on Line No. 2 shunting neck along with R. K. Sarbesh Singh and that he assaulted A.S.I. Sitaram Singh on his head resulting in bleeding injury. The petitioner filed show cause to the two charges mentioned above. The show cause was not found satisfactory and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was ordered in the matter. 3 The defence of the petitioner as appears from the statement made in this application and also from the enquiry report, was that he was falsely implicated as he refused to give evidence at the instance of A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh against R.K.Sarbesh Singh and that he was at AYMS cabin between 22.40 and 23.00 hours. In support of the defence version the petitioner examined three witnesses and also produced document which proved that the petitioner was in the cabin between 22.40 and 23 00 hours. The Enquiring Officer on a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed pilferage of sugar at 23.00 hours and that Ruakshak, Sarbesh Singh assaulted Sita Ram Singh on his leg with lathi. On these findings the Enquiring Officer was of the opinion that the two charges levelled against the petitioner were true. On these findings the Enquiring Officer was of the opinion that the two charges levelled against the petitioner were true. The enquiring Officer submitted his report to the Assistant Security Officer, who agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and imposed a punishment of reduction to the post of Rakshak for two years, Thereafter the Security officer issued a notice of his own under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules") to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service. The petitioner filed a detailed show cause challenging the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer and the order of demotion for two years as passed by the Assistant Security Officer. The Security Officer on a consideration of the matter was of the opinion that the charge of pilferage was quite a serious one which should not be lightly treated. He, therefore, directed that the petitioner should be removed from service (vide Annexure l/5). 4 The petitioner being aggrieved by the order removing him from service,preferred an appeal to the Chief Security Officer, who affirmed the penalty of removal from service and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this application. 5 Mr. B.C. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges as framed under Annexure I were not proved. He is that connection submitted that the first charge relating to pilferage by the petitioner which has been accepted by the authorities could not be said to have been proved, in as much as, neither the Enquiring Officer nor the Assistant Security Officer or revisional or appellate authorities considered the defence evidence to the effect that the petitioner at the relevant time was in AYM cabin and his presence there was supported by the documents maintained by the Assistant Yard Master. He also submitted that Sita Ram Singh (P.W. 3) was the only eye witness who deposed about pilferage by the petitioner, but according to him, his evidence could not be relied upon in view of the three defence witnesses and the documents maintained in the office of the Assistant Yard Master. With regard to the second charge regarding assault on A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh, learned Counsel submitted that he was asked to show cause if he had assaulted Sita Ram Singh on his head. With regard to the second charge regarding assault on A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh, learned Counsel submitted that he was asked to show cause if he had assaulted Sita Ram Singh on his head. He showed cause and the Enquiring Officer accepted his version that he did not assault Sita Ram Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that having held so, the Enquiring Officer should have he Id the second charge to have not been proved, but he committed an error in finding the petitioner guilty of standing nearby when the Rakshak Sarbesh Singh assaulted Sita Ram Singh on his leg a charge which was never, framed against the petitioner. There appears to be some force in this argument of Mr. Ghose and it appears to me prima facie that the two charges may not be said to have been proved against the petitioner, but the more important question in this case to be decided is as to whether the application is maintainable in view of Article 226 of the Constitution as it stands amended after the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976. 6 Under Article 226(1) of the Constitution (as it stands today) the High Courts have been authorised to issue directions, orders and writs of different nature (a) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III, or (b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of this Constitution or any provision of any enactment or Ordinance or any order, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument made thereunder ; or (c) for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in Sub-clause (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. This power to issue directions, orders or writs, however, is restricted by Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution which provides that no petition for the redress of any injury referred to in Sub- clause (b) or Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force. There is no discretion left in the High Courts in this matter, if there is any other remedy for the redress of the injury then the application cannot be entertained. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that since the petitioner had a remedy under the rules and since the grievance was not for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. - The application was not maintainable. He contended that violation, if at all, was of Article 311 of the Constitution which can be a ground for interference by this court under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution. 7 Mr. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioner very rightly did not contend that the facts of the case attracted Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution. He, however, contended that the petitioner had no remedy under the Rules and, therefore, the application was maintainable. In view of the respective contentions by the learned Counsels for the parties, it is necessary to keep certain provisions of the rules in mind. Rule 41 of the Rules enumerates certain types of penalty that may be imposed on a member of the force. It includes removal from service and reduction to a lower class or grade or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay. Rule 52 of the Rules empowers a member of force against whom an order imposing any of the penalties enumerated in Rule 41 of the Rules has been passed to file an appeal to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing the penalty. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 of the Rules, however, provides that there shall be no second appeal. It also provides that when the appellate authority imposes a penalty higher than the one appealed against, an appeal shall lie to the authority next superior to the appellate authority only if the penalty imposed by the appellate authority is higher than what was within the competence of the authority which imposed the original penalty. The next important rule in this connection is Rule 60 of the Rules which provides for a revision by any authority superior to the authority making the order on its own motion or otherwise. The next important rule in this connection is Rule 60 of the Rules which provides for a revision by any authority superior to the authority making the order on its own motion or otherwise. 8 The petitioner in this case was initially punished by the Assistant Security Officer who imposed a penalty reducing him to a lower grade for a period of two years. Although an appeal lay under Rule 51 of the Rules against that order, the petitioner does not seem to have preferred any appeal. The Security Officer on his own motion after issuing notice to the petitioner, revised the order and set aside the penalty reducing the petitioner to lower rank for a period of two years and imposed a penalty removing him from service. This order, in my opinion, was appealable under Rule 52(1) of the Rules, as this penalty was imposed for the first time by the Security Officer and this penalty, as noticed above is one of the penalties enumerated under Rule 41 of the Rules. I may also add here that the order imposing a penalty of removal from service by the Security Officer on the facts of this case could not be said to be an order passed by an appellate authority in appeal. It was an order passed by the revising authority for the first time, which enabled the petitioner to file an appeal to the Chief Security Officer. When the appeal was dismissed by the Chief Security Officer, the petitioner had yet another remedy under the rules and that was to prefer an application in revision to the Inspector General of the Railway Protection Force, an authority superior to the Chief Security Officer under Rule 3 of the Rules. That he did not do. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the application has abated as provided in Section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. 9 The petitioner has still a remedy of approaching the Inspector General of the Force by filing an application under Rule 60 of the Rules. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing such an application. 9 The petitioner has still a remedy of approaching the Inspector General of the Force by filing an application under Rule 60 of the Rules. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing such an application. It is true that delay in some cases may be a ground for not entertaining the applications filed under Rule 60 of the Rules, but on the facts of the case, in my opinion, no such accusation can be made against the petitioner as to disentitle him from resorting to the internal remedy. 10 The petitioner had filed this application in this Court in 1973 when the application was maintainable and a writ could be issued. But Article 226 of the Constitution of India was amended and Clause (3) was inserted taking away the powers of the court to issue writs in cases where remedy was provided in the Act or under any other law for the time being in force. This, in my view, is sufficient to explain the delay in filing the application under Rule 60 of the Rules. It will also relevant here to mention that the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976 provides that the time spent during the pendency of the writ application in the High Court, has not to be computed for the purposes of limitation. Therefore, I feel that in case the petitioner files an application under Rule 60 of the Rules before the Inspector General of the Force, he shall consider the same on merits and will pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This application, however, has to be dismissed as having abated. 11 In the result the application is dismissed with above observations. In the circumstances of the case, however/there will be no order as to costs. S.K. Jha, J. 12 I agree.