S. P. MEHROTRA, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the order dated 16-2-2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh. 2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and the petitioner was given charge-sheet dated 10-8-1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). 3. In response to the said charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply before the Inquiring Officer, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. It further appears that the Inquiring Officer submitted his report dated 19-2-2001. 5. After the submission of the enquiry report dated 19-2-2001, the Senior Divisional Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh gave show-cause notice dated 26-6-2001 to the petitioner annexing thereto a copy of the said enquiry report dated 19-2-2002 also. A copy of the said show-cause notice dated 26-6-2001 along with the said enquiry report dated 19- 2-2001 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 6. It further appears that another show-cause notice dated 24-1-2002 was given to the petitioner by the Senior Division Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh, inter alia, requiring the petitioner to show-cause against the proposed punishment. A copy of the said show-cause notice dated 24-1-2002 has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. 7. It further appears that the petitioner submitted a reply dated 7th February, 2002 to the said show- cause notice dated 24-1-2002. A copy of the said reply of the petitioner dated 7th February, 2002 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 8. Thereafter, the Senior Divisional Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh passed the impugned order dated 16-2-2002, inter alia, imposing on the petitioner the penalty of dismissal in terms of the provisions of Regulation No. 39 (1) (g) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, and further directing for recovery of Rs. 7,795. 60 from the petitioner under Regulation No. 39 (1) (c) of the said Regulations. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. 7,795. 60 from the petitioner under Regulation No. 39 (1) (c) of the said Regulations. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri A. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent. 10. Sri Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 30-1-1999 (Annexure. . . . . . . . to the writ petition), and as the petitioner had ceased to remain in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh, there was no question of imposing the penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. 11. Sri Srivastava has further submitted that the impugned order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh is illegal. 12. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order under Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations, and as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the submission made by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent is correct. Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations provides as follows : "40. Right of Appeal.-Every employee shall have a right of appeal to the appellate authority specified in Schedule I against any order passed under Regulation 36 or 39. An appeal against an order of suspension shall lie to the authority to which the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension is immediately subordinate. notwithstanding anything contained in this regulation and subject to the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, Rules and Regulations, no appeal shall lie against an order made by the Corporation under Regulation 36 or Regulation 39. " 14. As indicated above, the impugned order of dismissed has been passed under Regulation 39 (1) (g) of the aforesaid Regulations while the order of recovery of amount has been passed under Regulation 39 (1) (c) of the aforesaid Regulations. " 14. As indicated above, the impugned order of dismissed has been passed under Regulation 39 (1) (g) of the aforesaid Regulations while the order of recovery of amount has been passed under Regulation 39 (1) (c) of the aforesaid Regulations. The said impugned order has been passed by the Senior Divisional Manager/disciplinary Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh and not by the Corporation itself. 15. In the circumstances, the petitioner has not a right to file an appeal against the impugned order under Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations, and as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 16. As regards, the submission made by Sri Srivastava that the petitioner had already submitted his resignation on 30th January, 1999, and as such, he had ceased to remain in the employment of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Aligarh, this point may also be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority while filing the appeal under Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is further observed that in case, the petitioner files an appeal within three weeks from today before the appellate authority under Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations, the said appeal will be entertained without raising any objection regarding the limitation, if any, for filing appeal. It is, however, made clear that no directions are being given on the merit of the case of petitioner as it is for the appellate authority to take appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with law. 18. In case, the petitioner files appeal before the appellate authority within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall endeavor to decide the appeal expeditiously. Petition dismissed. .