JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Saikia 1. Heard Mr Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lalsawirema, the learned GA, Mizoram. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that while posted and functioning as Constable at Chhatisgarh, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of charges vide No. 21R(Mz)/RO-PF/C- 168/CG/08/163 dated 22.02.2008 and a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him on the following charges:- (i) Unauthorized and willful going out of 'E' Coy based Bhansi on the night of 18.01.2008 and returned on the same night in a drunken state; (ii) Creating nuisance in the camp under heavy influence of liquor on the night of 03.02.2008; (iii) Sleeping inside sentry post on the night of 07.02.2008 while on sentry duty under the influence of liquor; (iv) Passing of urine on 12.02.2008 at around 3:00 PM in an open space in front of local women showing his private part to them. 2. During the pendency of above proceeding, the petitioner was again served with another Memorandum of charges vide No. 21R(Mz)/RO-PF/C- 168/CG/08/225 dated 25.03.2008, on the allegation that he was found unauthorized and willful absent from his assigned Sentry duty at Bn.Hqrs. Sukma on the night of 23.03.2008 in between 11:00 to 1:00 PM at Sentry Post No. IV. 3. Again the petitioner was served with another Memorandum of charges vide No. 21R(Mz)/RO-PF/C-168/CG/08/706 dated 04.07.2008 on the following charges: (i) He had threatened some local labours using a knife on 20.06.2008 and went out of the camp area twice on the day without permission; (ii) He was found unable to perform his assigned sentry duty from 8 AM to 10 AM die to his drunkenness; (iii) On 11.07.2008 he sent one of the Home Guard namely C/51 Suraj Shetya of Gadiras P/s to bring liquor. But he demanded and taken back Rs. 120/- from other Home Guard namely C/274 Ashok Kumar Kumjam later on and also threatened and threw brick at him and created trouble; (iv) On 12.07.2008 he was found absent from Roll Call at 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM without any reason and he had attended General Roll Call at 6:00 PM the same day on compulsion. 4. In due course, the petitioner has submitted replies to the charges brought against him. 4. In due course, the petitioner has submitted replies to the charges brought against him. However, not being satisfied with such replies submitted against the aforesaid Memoranda, a Departmental enquiry was ordered and on the conclusion of the said Departmental enquiry, he was found guilty of some of the charges brought against him and vide Order dated 18.08.2008 at Annexure-VII a penalty in the form of removal from service was inflicted upon the writ petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of removal from service, the petitioner has come up with this present petition seeking following reliefs: In the circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue Rule against the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned removal order issued by the respondent No. 4 vide No. 21R(Mz)/RO-PF/C-168/CG/08/784 dated 18.08.2008 by which the petitioner was removed form his service should not be set aside and quashed and upon cause or causes shown and upon hearing the parties, your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and pass a direction t the respondent No. 4 to re-instate the petitioner to his post with immediate effect by treating him to be in service for the entire period during which he is out of service and for payment of back wages and all other benefits and/or pass any such further order or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 6. The respondent authorities entered appearance and filed counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. One of the grounds, agitated in the writ petition, was that Mizoram Police Manual, 2006 under which the enquiry against the writ petitioner was conducted created a forum for preferring appeal against any order of punishment, passed by Disciplinary authority and unless such a forum is availed of, a charged officer cannot comes straight away before the High Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To put it differently, when there is an effective alternative remedy, one cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In our instant case, the petitioner never approaches the aforesaid statutory forum to challenge the order of dismissal from service, passed by the Disciplinary authority. To put it differently, when there is an effective alternative remedy, one cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In our instant case, the petitioner never approaches the aforesaid statutory forum to challenge the order of dismissal from service, passed by the Disciplinary authority. Same not being done, this petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with cost ---argues learned GA. 8. I have heard the parties and have found that the Mizoram Police Manual, 2006 created an Appellate authority to whom a public servant inflicted with punishment by the Disciplinary authority needs to prefer an appeal. A public servant on whom punishment has been so imposed generally cannot move High Court straight away to invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 9. I am, therefore, in full agreement with the learned counsel for the State respondents that this petition is not maintainable in view of the petitioner's not approaching the statutory authority seeking appropriate relief against the order of removal which have been impugned herein this proceeding. 10. Being so, this writ petition is disposed of as being not maintainable. He may, if so advised, approach the statutory authority aforesaid seeking appropriate relief against the order of his removal from service on intimating the fact that for certain period, to be precise from 16.08.2011 till date, he was litigating before this Court. No costs.