SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N. K. Singh for petitioner and Sri Ved byas Misra for respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to call for the records of the case and quash the order dated 14. 9. 2001 passed by Managing Director, U. P. State Agro industrial Corporation Limited by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and an amount of Rs. 9,81,475. 70 has been directed to be recovered from him as well as enquiry report dated 2/3. 3. 2001. ( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri Ved Byas Misra stating that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of a departmental appeal to the Chairman of the U. P. State Agro Industrial corporation Limited. Sri Misra has relied upon resolution dated 10. 7. 2001 of the Corporation and Rule 24-A of the U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (Samanya Sewa) Niyamawali, 1984 by which the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings applicable to State Government employees, have been adopted and made applicable to officers and employees of the corporation. Rule 11 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides for an appeal to the next higher authority from the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In the present case the Chairman of the Corporation is the next higher authority. ( 4 ) A reference has also been made in this connection to the judgment of Supreme Court in prahlad Sharma v. State of U. P. , Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 2004, decided on 24. 2. 2004. It was found that in view of Rule 24-A the remedy of departmental appeal is available to the employee suffering punishment orders. However, the revision to the State Government is not available under Rule-13 of the Rules of 1999. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH I have heard Sri Ashok Khare on merits, I find that the present case does not fall within the well settled exceptions to exercise discretion and allow the petitioner to by-pass the alternative remedy of statutory departmental appeal. The punishment order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, or to have been passed in violation of the principal of natural justice. The punishment order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, or to have been passed in violation of the principal of natural justice. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against orders in departmental proceedings is very limited. It would, therefore, be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of a departmental appeal. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is consequently dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In case, however, the petitioner prefers an appeal, within 30 days from today, the small shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law without raising any objection on limitation. . .