1. The appellant appointed as Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police, on 18-02-1987, and promoted to the post of ASI(M) vide PHQ Order No.412/2001 dated 29-11-2001, was sometime in 2005 placed as Incharge deployment ladies contingent, PHQ, Srinagar. It was subsequently brought to the notice of Respondent No. 3 that the appellant in his capacity as Incharge deployment ladies contingent had indulged in corruption and other mal-practices. The appellant was alleged to have extracted monitory and sexual favours from the lady constables, in lieu of his exempting them from daily deployment and extending other concessions. Respon­dent No. vide his No.APHQ/CIT/Misc 06/61 directed DIG AP (K) to hold enquiry into the matter for appropriate action. The DIG AP (K) in turn vide his reference No.AROK/PS/Clt/Misac-52/2005/13 dated 30.1.2006 entrusted the matter to the Deputy Commandant, JKAP 5th Battalion, Srinagar. The Enquiry Officer (Deputy Commandant JKAP 5th Battalion) on 27.2.2006 served summary of allegations on the appellant, informed him that the omission and commission attributed to him were grave and serious and punishable under the J&K Police Rules as also section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and asked the appellant to give his response to the summary of allegations so served. This was followed by a formal charge sheet served by the Deputy Commandant 5th Battalion JKAP vide his No. Dy. CoEnq./V/06/5316 dated 17.4.2006 and the appellant was asked to furnish his reply, if any, within a period of seven days. The appellant filed his detailed reply on 19-4-2006, denying all the allegations set out in the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer vide his No. Dy. CO-Enq/V/06/7323 dated 22-5-2006 returned his findings, opining that "the charge of corruption and sexual abuse are established against the appellant in his capacity as Incharge Deployment of Ladies Contingent" and made the following recommendations: 1. ASI (M) Feroz Ahmad (the then Incharge deployment APCR Lady Contingent) may be reduced to lower rank n i.e. HC (M) for a period of three years in terms of rule 334 Sub clause 2(h). 2. The charge of deployment of Lady police contingent should not be given to a non-gazetted officer and preferably the contingent should remain under the command and control of a Lady gazetted officer at the time of their deployment at APCR/PCR. 3. 2. The charge of deployment of Lady police contingent should not be given to a non-gazetted officer and preferably the contingent should remain under the command and control of a Lady gazetted officer at the time of their deployment at APCR/PCR. 3. An entry may be made in the service book of ASI (M) Feroz Ahmad that he shall not be given a key assignment or any kind of assignment dealing with the lady contingents." 2. The Respondent No. 3 on receipt of the enquiry report and the recommen­dations of the Enquiry Officer vide his No. 24179 dated 7.6.2006 issued a show cause notice in terms of rule 359 (11) (2) of J&K Police Rules, 1960 to the appellant informing him that the punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer was not commensurate with the charges established against him and that the punishment was proposed to be enhanced to reduction of rank as HC(M) and asked the appellant to show cause against the proposed enhancement of punishment within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 3. The appellant on 7-6-2006 made a representation to the Respondent No. 3 alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer, attributing delay in concluding the en­quiry to such bias and asked for appointment of new Enquiry Officer with a direction to allow the appellant to adduce evidence in his defence. The appellant on 13.6.2006 submitted reply to the show cause notice, and on the grounds detailed therein, asked for revocation of the enquiry proceedings. The appellant appended the awards and commendations certificates awarded to him from time to time, with his reply to the show cause notice. 4. The Respondent No. 3 on going through the material including reply to the show cause notice with its annexures vide No. 411 of 2006 dated 7-7-2006 recorded his agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, ordered appellant's reduc­tion of rank from Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) to Head Constable (Minis­terial) and directed that the appellant be not posted on any important assignment. The appellant on 24-7-2006 filed review petition against order No. 411 of 2006 dated 7-7-2006 seeking its review. 5. The appellant, however, without waiting for the out come of review petition, filed writ petition throwing challenge to the summary of allegations, charge sheet, enquiry proceedings, show cause notice as also the final order No. 411 of 2006 dated 7-7-2006. The appellant on 24-7-2006 filed review petition against order No. 411 of 2006 dated 7-7-2006 seeking its review. 5. The appellant, however, without waiting for the out come of review petition, filed writ petition throwing challenge to the summary of allegations, charge sheet, enquiry proceedings, show cause notice as also the final order No. 411 of 2006 dated 7-7-2006. The appellant complained that he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard, and that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of procedure established by law. It was insisted that the appellant was subjected to discrimina­tory treatment. The appellant also complained that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed) to whom the enquiry was entrusted, was incompetent to further entrust the enquiry to the Dy. Commandant, 5th Battalion, JKAP and the enquiry thus conducted was illegal and without any lawful authority. The appellant on the strength of averments made in the petition, asked for following relief: "CERTIORARI and quash the enquiry proceedings as also including sum­mary of allegation, charge sheet, enquiry report, show cause notice, final order as contained in Annexure-J, Annexure-K, Annexure-O, Annexure-P, Annexure-U and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore back the position of ASI(M) to the petitioner retrospectively from the date he has been reduced in the rank alongwith all consequential service benefits, balance of salary and the right of consideration for future promo­tion on the basis of uninterrupted order was never passed." 6. The writ petition registered as SWP No. 1710/06, was rejected at its thresh-hold as premature in as much as petitioner's review petition was pending with the competent authority. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to re-agitate the matter once his review petition was disposed of. The Writ Court while rejecting the writ petition nonetheless noticed the gravity of the allegations leveled against the appellant and observed that the matter was not limited to the vires of the enquiry impugned in the petition but revealed "frightening scenario concerning the func­tioning of the police department". In the opinion of the writ court, the matter constituted "a subject of public importance". In the opinion of the writ court, the matter constituted "a subject of public importance". The writ court vide order dated 3.2.2007 after reproducing in detail the misconduct that surfaced during the en­quiry, passed the following direction: a) A copy of this order alongwith that of the enquiry report above quoted be communicated to SSP Crime Branch, Srinagar with a direction to take cognizance of the incriminating statements forthcoming therein and investigate the criminal aspect apparently percolating there-from, and furnish his report to CJM Srinagar, who shall monitor the investigation keeping this court informed. The DGP of the State and authorities of IRCON and other concerned shall render all requisite aid and assistance to the Crime Branch for facilitating the investigation. b) The first report in the matter be submitted by CJM by 28th Feb. 2007, to be listed in first week of March alongwith the index to be maintained in the matter, appended by a copy of this order." 7. The appellant through medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal, questions the writ Court order dated 3-2-2007 on the grounds that the writ court instead of granting relief prayed for by the appellant, has proceeded to punish the appellant without any grievance having been projected by the respondents before the writ court and that too without any notice to the appellant or affording the appellant an opportunity to project his stand touching the material placed in the enquiry record. It is insisted that the writ court has while opining on the matter, rendered the role of both the Enquiry Officer and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar inconsequen­tial. It is pleaded that the competent authority having failed to dispose of the review petition within a period of 90 days in terms of rule 36 of the J&K Police Rules, the pendency of the review petition would not stand in the way of appellant to file writ petition; and that it was not open to the writ court to hold the writ petition as pre mature on the ground of pendency of review petition. 8. The respondents in their objections filed in wake of order dated 20-2-2009 in the present appeal, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of mis-representation of facts. 8. The respondents in their objections filed in wake of order dated 20-2-2009 in the present appeal, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of mis-representation of facts. The respondents maintain that on receipt of com­plaint of illegal gratification and sexual exploitation against the appellant, enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with rules and the order reducing the appel­lant in rank was passed by a competent officer having due regard to the require­ments of law. It is also denied that the appellant was not granted an opportunity of being heard or that the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner. The respon­dents further deny that the Enquiry Officer was incompetent to hold enquiry or was biased against the appellant so as to render the enquiry tainted with mala fides. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the memorandum of appeal as also the writ record. 10. The main plank of appellant's case is that the pendency of review petition was not a valid reason for the writ court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India read with section 103 of the J&K Constitution and throw out the writ petition at the very thresh hold oblivious to the violation of fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice averred in the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on law laid down in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. And another v. ASP Sealing Products Ltd 2009 AIR(Civil) 869 Supreme Court of India, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Popular Plantation and another v. State of Kerla and others 1991 Supp (2) SCC 720, insists that existence of alternative statutory remedy is not a constitutional bar to the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the availability of alternative remedy would not operate as bar where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or alleges violation of principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings questioned before the High Court are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 12. There is no scope for any disagreement with learned counsel for the appellant that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as bar against exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. There is no scope for any disagreement with learned counsel for the appellant that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as bar against exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra) after making comprehensive survey of the case law very succinctly laid down the law, on the subject as under : "The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part-Ill of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose." 13. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged...." 14. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant however, is not to extend any help to the case set up in the appeal. It needs to be pointed out that the appellant in the present case filed review petition before the competent authority seeking review of order No. 411 of 2006 dated 7.7.2006 impugned in the petition and thus made use of available alternate remedy. The review petition filed by the appellant was pending and under consideration of the competent authority even on the date the writ petition was filed. The appellant thus, is presumed to have availed alternate remedy available to him considering it efficacious enough for redressal of his grievances. The review petition filed by the appellant was pending and under consideration of the competent authority even on the date the writ petition was filed. The appellant thus, is presumed to have availed alternate remedy available to him considering it efficacious enough for redressal of his grievances. The appellant did not find it necessary to withdraw the review petition or get it disposed of as "not pressed" before invoking writ jurisdic­tion of this Court. The appellant decided to prosecute parallel proceedings before the competent authority as also this Court. The appellant, if disappointed by the pace at which his review petition was dealt with, ought to have either withdrawn the review petition so that decks were clear for the appellant to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court or in alternative sought a direction to the competent authority requiring it to deal with and dispose of his review petition in a fixed time frame or with proper dispatch. The appellant instead decided to have more than one irons in the fire and seek writ of certiorari quashing an order that was subject matter of review before the competent authority. Such a recourse in our opinion, was not available to the appellant. While availability of an alternate remedy would not be a bar against exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir in case of contingencies laid down in Whirpool Corporation Case, the High Court would decline to exercise such jurisdiction, where the petitioner has already pressed into service alternate remedy and is prosecuting such remedy on the date of filing the writ petition. It would run contrary to the public policy to allow the petitioner to agitate the matter simultaneously before more than one fora. The petitioner is to choose between one of the two courses open to him to voice and get his grievances set right. What emerges is that where the petitioner chooses an alternate remedy available to him, the petitioner cannot in midstream change boats and switch over to constitutional remedy without abandoning the statutory remedy already opted for. 15. In any case, the discussion because of the events subsequent to the im­pugned order together with the import of the impugned order is rendered purely academic. 15. In any case, the discussion because of the events subsequent to the im­pugned order together with the import of the impugned order is rendered purely academic. It is pertinent to point out that the review petition filed by the appellant has been rejected vide order dated 29.6.2007 i.e. after the impugned order whereby the writ petition was rejected at its thresh-hold. The writ court, it may be recalled, did not decide the writ petition on merits but rejected it being premature because of the pendency of appellant's review petition with the competent authority. The writ court gave liberty to the appellant to re-agitate the matter once the review petition was disposed of. In the circumstances, once the review petition was rejected, fresh cause of action to file writ petition accrued to the petitioner to question the enquiry proceedings, the order reducing the appellant in rank as also the order rejecting his review petition. The impugned order does not stand in the way of appellant to seek enforcement of his Fundamental Right and to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to get his grievances redressed, that he earlier unsuccessfully attempted to seek. Needless to mention that it would not be proper to deal with the grounds of challenge to the impugned order detailed by the appellant in the writ petition, in appeal, as such exercise would deprive the parties of an opportunity to question the findings returned on such grounds, in a Letters Patent Appeal. Having regard to the fact that writ petition has been rejected at the very out-set, without going into its merits and to save the petitioner from litigation costs for filing of fresh writ petition may involve, the just and proper course would be to revive/restore the Writ Petition i.e. SWP No. 1710/2006 and request the Writ Court to deal with the petition on its merits. 16. Second limb of appellant's case put fourth in the memorandum of appeal relates to the direction given by the writ court while rejecting appellant's writ petition to Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch to take cognizance of the incriminating statements forthcoming in the enquiry report and investigate the criminal aspect of the matter and furnish his report to Chief Judicial Magistrate to monitor the investigation. The ground taken up in the appeal that the writ court traveled beyond jurisdiction while passing aforesaid direction in as much as there was neither any complaint before the writ court alleging exploitation of a lady constable nor was the appellant given an opportunity to show cause against the order, is bereft of any merit. It needs to be pointed out in the first place that the writ court did not direct any action against the appellant so as to give cause to the appellant to complain that direction having any penal consequences for the appel­lant, was passed without notice to the appellant and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The writ court asked SSP Crime Branch to take cognizance of incriminating statement forthcoming in the enquiry report and to investigate the criminal aspect of mal-practices that had surfaced during enquiry. There in the circumstances, was no requirement to issue a notice to the appellant much-less affording him an opportunity to show cause against the direction pro­posed to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case. This apart, once the writ court from the material placed by the appellant on the file, noticed sexploitation of lady constables in lieu of monetary benefits or concessions in discharge of their duties, and that the matter oblivious of its gravity and seriousness, was downplayed and given colour and complexion of mere indiscipline, to be dealt with in depart­mental enquiry, the writ court was not only required, but under a constitutional obligation to ask the authorities saddled under law with duty of crime detection and investigation to discharge their legal duties. There is thus, no reason to find fault with the impugned judgment in the name of overstepping the jurisdiction or violation of the principles of natural justice. In any case, as is evident from the report of the Investigating Officer (Dy SP Crime Branch, Srinagar) dated 24-7-2008, the investigation of the case FIR No. 20/2007 has been concluded as proved against the appellant and the appellant prima facie found to have committed offence punishable under section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, Section 5 PITA and Section 354 RFC. Inspector General of Police, Crime, HQ vide his No. CBH/FIR 20/2007/CBK-5836 dated 27-4-2010 has asked for further investigation into the matter and remanded back the case diaries to the Investigating Officer. Inspector General of Police, Crime, HQ vide his No. CBH/FIR 20/2007/CBK-5836 dated 27-4-2010 has asked for further investigation into the matter and remanded back the case diaries to the Investigating Officer. The directions given by the 1GP Crime, however, appear not to be complied with probably because of submission of the case diaries file to this Court. The challenge to the impugned order as regards issuance of direction to the SSP Crime Branch to investigate the matter, for the reasons discussed, is also destined to fail. 17. We, for the reasons discussed above, order revival/restoration of SWP No. 1710/2006 to its original number and direct its listing at an earliest. The parties shall be free to supplement their pleadings, so that the events, if any, subsequent to the Writ Court order dated 03-2-2007 relevant to the controversy involved are brought before the Writ Court. The investigation of case FIR No. 20/2007 U/S 5(2) of P.C. Act read with Section 2 of PITA, in the meantime, shall be taken to its logical end with proper dispatch and the final report submitted before the competent Court within one month from the date copy of this judgment is received by the Investi­gating Officer. 18. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the judgment be forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar for information and compliance.