Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 02.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 17976 of 2009, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''appellant') was visited with a penalty of recovery for a sum of Rs. 94,620/- on account of loss caused to the State Government. He challenged the aforesaid order in WRIT Petition No. 21750 of 1994 and by order dated 25.02.2008, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant and decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed upholding the recovery from the appellant. Challenge made before the learned Judge has failed on the ground that the appellant has statutory remedy of appeal under the service Rules by which he is governed. Mr. P.K. Kashyap, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition and as such the remedy of appeal shall not bar the appellant to approach this Court. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kashyap and the said submission can very well be looked into by the Appellate Authority. It is well settled that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, this Court exercises power of judicial review in exceptional circumstances and the case in hand is not amongst one of the exceptional circumstances. We are of the opinion that the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has not committed any error warranting interference in appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.;