ORDER Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioners, when, were inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment and censure vide order dated 31.12.2011, approached the authority on 20.01.2012 for review of the penalty order. The said application of the petitioners has been rejected and they have been communicated decision of the competent authority through letter dated 22.02.2012. Order dated 31.12.2011 and the order contained in letter dated 22.02.2012 have been impugned by the petitioners in the writ petition. 2. On an allegation that the petitioners brought a life-convict namely, Ranjan Mandal from Ward No. 4 on 01.10.2004 and assaulted him with stick, as a result of which the convict suffered grievous injuries and he ultimately died on 07.10.2004, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners. They were made accused in a criminal case vide, Jamtara P.S. Case No. 145 of 2004 registered for the offences under sections 323/34, 302/34 and 509/34 Indian Penal Code The petitioners were finally acquitted of the criminal charges framed against them in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2005, vide judgment and order dated 10.09.2009. After their acquittal in the criminal case, by an order dated 24.09.2011 they were exonerated in the departmental proceeding. The disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that charges framed against the petitioners are not proved. The Inspector-General (Jail), Jharkhand has, however, passed order dated 31.12.2011 under which the following punishments have been imposed upon the petitioners: 1 dBksj psrkouh 2 & fuyEou vof/k esa thou fuokZg HkRrk ds vykos dksbZ vfrfjDr jkf''k ns; ugha ijUrq lsok esa mDr vof/k ds fy;s dksbZ VwV ugha ekuh tk;sxhA 3 & ,d&osru o`f) vlap;kRed izHkko ls jksdus dk vkns''k fn;k tkrk gSA mi;qZDr naM+ dks mi;qZDr vkjksfir dehZ dh lsok iqLr esa dze''k% izfof"V ntZ dj nh tk;A g0@& fot; dqekj flag dkjk egkfujh{kd] >kj[k.M+] jkaphA 3. Under Rule 555 of Bihar Jail Manual (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand) every convict has a statutory right to prefer an appeal. There is an elaborate procedure laid down in the Jail Manual under Rule 559. A bare reading of Rule 555 to Rule 562 would disclose that an efficacious statutory remedy has been provided to the convict. It is well-settled that in an appeal parties are entitled to challenge the original order in law as well as on facts. There is an elaborate procedure laid down in the Jail Manual under Rule 559. A bare reading of Rule 555 to Rule 562 would disclose that an efficacious statutory remedy has been provided to the convict. It is well-settled that in an appeal parties are entitled to challenge the original order in law as well as on facts. The appellate authority is enjoined by law to record in its order brief facts of the case and the plea raised by the appellant. The appellate authority is also required to record its independent reason either for agreeing or disagreeing with the order under appeal. 4. Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned State counsel refers to a decision in Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 to contend that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not exonerate a delinquent from charges framed in a departmental proceeding. Suffice would be to record that in the present proceeding this Court is not examining the matter on merits. The petitioners have an efficacious remedy of appeal under the extent Rules and while so, a liberty is granted to them to prefer an appeal against the penalty order dated 31.12.2011, within 4 weeks. Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned counsel states that the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand is the appellate authority. 5. In the result, in view of the alternative remedy the writ petition is held not maintainable, at this stage. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners.