Judgment :- The petitioner was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force. He filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated Nil (July 2003) wherein by which, he was dismissed from service with effect from 29.07.2003, namely from the date of his conviction. 2. The petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced to undergo two months imprisonment with fine and he was lodged in District Jail, Daltonganj (Jharkhand) by the order passed by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, CRPF, Jharkand. The period of detention, namely, from 22.07.2003 to 28.07.2003 was also set-off against the term of imprisonment made against the petitioner. It is fairly submitted that the said conviction was not under challenge. 3. It must be noted that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was enacted by the parliament and under Section 3(1) of the Act, it was deemed to be an Armed Force of the Indian Union. By virtue of the said declaration, Article 33 of the Constitution of India will come into operation, where the fundamental rights of the members of the force can be curtailed by the law made by the parliament. 4. Therefore, when the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 10 of the CRPF Act, which is for a less heinous offence, he was convicted in terms of Section 10(n) of the Act. If the said conviction was not under challenge in the manner known to law, automatically Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act will come into force. By the said provision, every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from service besides forfeiture of pay and allowance and any other moneys due to him including medals and decorations received by him by the petitioner. The attempt made by the petitioner to challenge only the removal order passed under Section 12(1) without challenging the conviction made by the Commandant of the battalion cannot be countenanced by this Court. 5. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.06.2006 justifying his dismissal. The ground relating to double jeopardy was specifically denied by them. 5. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.06.2006 justifying his dismissal. The ground relating to double jeopardy was specifically denied by them. In as much as the Act provides a separate procedure for dismissal and the petitioner having been dismissed for conviction and detention undergone by him in prison, it is not open to him to challenge the said dismissal without any further challenge to the conviction made already and the sentence of which was already undergone by him. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.