JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order of his removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.08.2007 vide Annexure-4 and confirmation thereof by order of the Appellate Authority dated 05.04.2008, vide Annexure-5, the petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner being successful in all tests of selection was appointed as a Constable/GD in Group Centre CRPF, Bhubaneswar on 01.04.1988. After his joining, he was sent to Group Centre CRPF Mukamghat in 95 Battalion CRPF. Thereafter on completion of training, he was posted to 4th Battalion CRPF and while he was continuing in that Battalion he was promoted to the post of HC/GD (Havildar) in the year 2004 and posted to D Company of 4th Battalion CRPF, which was deployed in the residence of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Jammu and Kashmir for security purpose. In that Company there were 14 guard posts and in each post three constables and one Havildar were deployed. The petitioner, being a Havildar, was deployed in Post no.11 as Guard Commander. On 03.04.2006 a Constable known as CT/GD Anand Singh from Post No.3 became violent and opened fire at three CRPF personnel, such as, Inspector Mohan Shyam (Company Commander) was deployed in front of Kote guard of the said company, HC/GD H.N. Pandey was deployed in front of ORS Line No.3 and HC/GD Yogendra Jha was deployed at ORS Mess, consequent upon which they succumbed to the injuries on the very date. After hearing the sound, all the company personnel including the petitioner became stand still to but taking advantage of darkness, the assailant escaped from the place and surrendered in the nearby Police Station. After the above incident, inquiry was conducted by the authorities and after completion of the same, charge-sheet was submitted by the Disciplinary Authority namely, Commandant 4th Battalion CRPF against three persons including the petitioner. Thereafter on 12.12.2006 vide Annexure-1, the petitioner was called upon to show cause. In compliance with the same, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 09.01.2007 denying the allegation of negligence. Thereafter on 12.12.2006 vide Annexure-1, the petitioner was called upon to show cause. In compliance with the same, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 09.01.2007 denying the allegation of negligence. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the same, appointed one Sri Jaikisan A/C 4th Battalion CRPF as Enquiring Officer to enquire into the matter under Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 under Annexure-2. Pursuant to the above order, the inquiry was conducted by the Enquiring Officer and report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner on 23.04.2007 finding him guilty of the charges. The said inquiry report was sent to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority to file representation, if he desired, within 15 days from the date of receipt of that report vide Annexure-3. In obedience to the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed his reply denying his fault in the said incident, but without examining the same in a proper perspective, the DIGP, CRPF, Patna removed the petitioner from service on 24.08.2004 vide Annexure-4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General, CRPF, Bihar for setting aside the same but the Appellate Authority without application of mind confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service by rejecting his appeal vide Annexure-5. 3. Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind in as much as in non-compliance with the provisions contained in CRPF Rules, 1955. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. A. Venkata Raidu, 2007 (1) SCC 338 , Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2013 (II) OLR SC 48, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5 SCC 783, Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84 and Union of India vs. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC 215 . 4. Mr. 4. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel for the Union of India, strenuously urged that the punishment imposed by the authority is well within its jurisdiction and as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment and more so, when there is alternative remedy available under the Rule-29 of the CRPF Rules to prefer revision without availing of the revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner should not have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Sheela Devi vs. Juspal Singh, 1990 (1) SCC 209 and Bijay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, 2011 (Supp. II) OLR (SC) 601. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in A. Venkata Raidu case (supra) stating that the charge sheet should not be vague but should be specific. In Rajendra Yadav case (supra), it was held that punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquent who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment, which is disproportionate, i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. The Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. In Raj Pal Singh case (supra) it is held that different punishment for identical charges, delinquency and incident on the same day, would amount to discrimination and when charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment would be discriminatory. In Munna Lal Jain case (supra) it is held that the Court should interfere with the punishment if it is called for only when it is so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience. In Giriraj Sharma case (supra), it is held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the grant of misconduct, it would be arbitrary and would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. In Giriraj Sharma case (supra), it is held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the grant of misconduct, it would be arbitrary and would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Union of India, has relied upon the judgment in Bijay Kumar Singh case (supra) it is held that whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charges alleged, the Court has to keep in view the various factors like the nature of job, the standard of honesty and integrity required of the employees and various other aspects. 7. As it appears, Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 deals with revision. The petitioner has not preferred the revision before the competent authority. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sheela Devi case (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that if the petitioner has bypassed the alternative remedy, he has to mention why he has not availed the same. As it appears from the pleadings available in the writ petition, the petitioner has not substantiated the fact by giving any cogent reason as to why he has not availed the remedy available under the statute under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules by preferring a revision. If alternative remedy is available and there is every likelihood that the revisional authority can consider the same in accordance with law, the contentions which have been raised before this Court, in that case extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not have been invoked. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the law referred to substantiating his contention, can also be considered by the revisional authority while adjudicating the case in conformity with the provisions of law. 8. This Court in Gopal Krishna Behera vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 7949 of 2014 disposed of 1.7.2014 in paragraph 9 observed thus: “In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court mentioned supra where the party had a statutory remedy available under the relevant statute, he cannot bypass the said remedy and file a writ petition under Article 226. It was held that if such a procedure is allowed, it may enable the litigant to defeat the provisions of the statute. It was held that if such a procedure is allowed, it may enable the litigant to defeat the provisions of the statute. The normal rule is that a writ petition should not be entertained when statutory remedy is available under the concerned legislation unless exceptional cases are made out in view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496 , Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 , Scooters India vs. Vijai E.V. Eldred, (1998) 6 SCC 549 , Chndrakant Tukaram Nikam vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, (2002) 2 SCC 542 , Seth Chand Ratan vs. Pandit Durga Prasad, AIR 2003 SC 2736 U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268 , U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, 101 (2006) CLT 160 (SC) and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. Jabar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 112. 9. Taking into consideration the above provision of law and the CRPF Rules, 1955, since provision of revision is made available and no exceptional case is made out by the petitioner to bypass the revisional authority, this Court is of the view that without availing the alternative remedy prescribed under the Statute, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of observing that the petitioner may ventilate his grievance by approaching the revisional forum under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955.