Judgement- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.07.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Almora, dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited as Constable in the police force on 11.12.1984. The recruitment was held at Bareilly. The petitioner is a resident of village Narainpur, Thana Tahsil Kichha, the then district Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). After successfully completing physical test, he was required to fill up police proforma no. 372 issued by the S.S.P. Bareilly. In the aforesaid proforma certain columns were to be filled by the candidates such as name, father's name, permanent address, date of birth and educational qualification etc. One portion of the aforesaid proforma was to be filled by the Reserve Inspector of Police in which he was required to fill up physical fitness of the candidates. The other portion was to be filled up by the Doctor, Police Hospital giving medical fitness certificate and thereafter at the bottom of the form, S.S.P. has to make his remarks that the candidate is recruited for the post of Constable in Police. After selection, the petitioner underwent his trailling and after successfully completing the same, he has served as a Constable in different districts and at the time of filing of writ petition, he was working in district Almora. On the basis of complaint received by the department, preliminary inquiry was held and on the basis of preliminary inquiry report explanation was called from the petitioner for the charges leveled against him. A departmental inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge and consequently the disciplinary authority awarded punishment to the petitioner by dismissing him from service. The petitioner has challenged this order. 3. Heard Sri Pratap Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned standing counsel has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken the same stand, which they have mentioned in the order impugned itself. 5. Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made a submission that only charge leveled against the petitioner was that the petitioner by misleading the authorities has obtained the appointment in the police department. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken the same stand, which they have mentioned in the order impugned itself. 5. Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made a submission that only charge leveled against the petitioner was that the petitioner by misleading the authorities has obtained the appointment in the police department. The charge against the petitioner was that he has submitted forged certificate to the effect that he is a hill-man to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.01.1982 by which the Hillmen were given relaxation in the recruitment of Police so far as the height and chest measurements are concerned. As per the G.O. dated 06.06.1977 for recruitment in the Police Department minimum height for general candidate is required 167.7 cm. whereas for hill-men it is 162.6 cm. The chest measurement for general candidates is required 78.8 cm. And after expansion it should be 83.8 cm. For hill-men it is required 76.5 cm.-81.3 cm. Vide G.O. dated 16.1.1982, this relaxation was granted only to those candidates who are residents of hill area of Nainital and Pauri Garhwal and not to the whole district. As per the police proforma, though the height of the petitioner was recorded 165.7 cm and the chest measurement was 78 cm.-82 cm., yet he was recruited by giving relaxation to him under the aforesaid G.O. being hill-man whereas the fact is that the Petitioner was not hill-man as he was a permanent resident of village Narainpur, Tahsil Kichha, the then district Nainital. The G.O. dated 16.1.1982 provided relaxation only to those persons who are resident of hill area of district Nainital. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the aforesaid proforma, he has only mentioned his name, his father's name, his qualifications, etc. The portion in which hill-man was to be mentioned was filled by the Reserve Inspector of Police and not by the petitioner. As such, he cannot be blamed for that. He has only submitted certificate to the effect that he is a permanent resident of district Nainital. Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the affect of the dismissal order is that the petitioner has been uprooted. He has put in eighteen years service and he has become over-age for any other service. He cannot seek employment anywhere else. He is having a family to support. Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the affect of the dismissal order is that the petitioner has been uprooted. He has put in eighteen years service and he has become over-age for any other service. He cannot seek employment anywhere else. He is having a family to support. Further, the department was satisfied with his work in all these years. As such, dismissal order is bad. He has placed reliance in the case of Sita Ram Vs. Executive Engineer 1999 (3) UPLBEC page 2095. He has further stated that the word hill-man was not written by him is clear from the statement of Sri Lal Bahadur Singh, Reserve Inspector of Police, who was supposed to fill up that portion of the form. Further the order impugned is based on surmises and conjectures. The Superintendent of Police in the impugned order himself though has not recorded a finding that any certificate to the effect that he is hill-man was submitted, yet has recorded a finding that the petitioner it appears has been recruited on the basis of some certificate which might had been submitted by the petitioner himself. There is no finding that the petitioner submitted any certificate to this effect nor there is any mention in the statement of any official during departmental proceeding or preliminary inquiry. 6. In the case of Sita Ram Vs. Executive Engineer, 1999 (3) U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 2095, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the termination order on the ground that the petitioner had worked for 25 years and he was terminated without giving any opportunity under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules 1975. In the present case it is true that the petitioner had served for more than 17 years but the termination order has been passed after departmental proceedings. The petitioner cannot take any help from the aforesaid citation. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. In the present case it is true that the petitioner had served for more than 17 years but the termination order has been passed after departmental proceedings. The petitioner cannot take any help from the aforesaid citation. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. Executive Engineer Tubewell Division, 1998 (2) U.P. Local Bodies and Education Cases 1098 and has submitted that the petitioner has got employment on the basis of a certificate that he is a Hillman whereas the area where the petitioner permanently resides does not fall within the purview of those areas the residents of which have been given relaxation in height for the purpose of recruitment in police force. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is untenable. Firstly, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner has not submitted any certificate to the effect that he is a hill man. He had only submitted a certificate of permanent residence. The certificate was issued by the competent authority. The certificate was found genuine. The certificate was to the effect that he belongs to district Nainital, which is not disputed by the respondent even today. In the case of Anil Kumar Tiwari (supra) the petitioner has obtained employment on the basis of his claim that he was a resident of a particular village and thereafter an inquiry was held as regard to the correctness of the said claim of the petitioner. On inquiry it came to be known that the petitioner's claim of being resident of a particular place was not proved and in such circumstances the petitioner's service was terminated. 8. In the present case the petitioner was recruited by the competent authority. The recruitment was not done on the basis of any forged certificate submitted by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner was 3 cm short in height as required for general candidates. However, it was the mistake of the recruiting officer and not of the petitioner. He has continued in service for more that 17 years. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. It is true that the petitioner was 3 cm short in height as required for general candidates. However, it was the mistake of the recruiting officer and not of the petitioner. He has continued in service for more that 17 years. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another Versus S. D. Halegkar and others, 1993 (3) see page 591 in para 6 has held as under:- "Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be iniquitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same." 10. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has got himself recruited in the police force on the basis of wrong certificate and wrongly mentioned in the proforma 372 hill-man though he was not a Hillman. The learned standing counsel further submitted that under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. Rule 20 provide for appeal against an order of punishment mentioned in sub clause I to III of clause (a) of Rule 4. The dismissal order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police and as such the petitioner has a statutory remedy to seek relief against the punishment order by way of departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is true that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellant authority. The dismissal order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police and as such the petitioner has a statutory remedy to seek relief against the punishment order by way of departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is true that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellant authority. However as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases alternative remedy is not a constitutional bar but is a self imposed restriction. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1 has held that the existence of alternative statutory remedies is not a constitutional bar to the High Court's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction. In recent cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 8620-8621 of 2002 Harbans Lal Sahnia &. Anr Versus Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, &. Ors has held that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts of a case. In the present case the dismissal order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner appears to have been recruited on the basis of a certificate submitted by him as he is a hill man though no finding has been recorded to this effect that such certificate was ever submitted by the petitioner. On the contrary it is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner had submitted a certificate of permanent residence. It has not been stated that the certificate is not genuine. A finding has also been recorded that in the proforma no. 372 issued by the S.S.P. Bareilly at the time of recruitment of the petitioner in the column of fitness certificate the word 'hill man' was written by the reserved police Inspector and not by the petitioner. As already stated above the petitioner has completed more than 17 years in service. Moreover, the petition was entertained by the High Court and the respondents have already filed counter affidavit. As such it will not be feasible to ask the petitioner now to seek alternative remedy. 12. As already stated above the petitioner has completed more than 17 years in service. Moreover, the petition was entertained by the High Court and the respondents have already filed counter affidavit. As such it will not be feasible to ask the petitioner now to seek alternative remedy. 12. It is true that the petitioner is 3 cm short in the height as required for general candidate and the defect is not curable. However the recruiting authority recruited the petitioner in the police force giving relaxation as provided by government order to the hill area of Nainital district though he belongs to the plain area of the district. The mistake appears bonafide. Further there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner. He has served for 17 years in the police force and the defect he has did not come in the way of petitioner in performing the duty to the satisfaction of his superiors during all these 17 years. 13. In view of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol (Supra) it will not be proper to upset the petitioner after 17 years of his service. 14. For the reasons stated above we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police Almora. No order as to costs.