JUDGMENT Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - A preliminary objection has been raised to maintainability of this writ petition on behalf of oppositeparties by the learned counsel for the oppositeparties Dr. Ashok Nigam, Advocate, who has accepted the notice of the petition on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The learned Counsel for oppositeparties has contended that petitioner has got the alternative remedy to approach the U.P. Public Service Tribunal and the petitions, as such, be rejected and dismissed. The learned counsel for the oppositeparties has referred to Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director 1991(1) UPLBEC 896. Shri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner contested and refuted and replied the above contentions and submitted that present is the case in which the orders impugned have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, so alternative remedy is no bar and the decision of Chandrama Singh's case does not apply and so the petition is as such maintainable and the preliminary objection need be rejected. 2. Having heard the contentions of learned counsel as desired as well by the learned counsels I propose to decide and dispose of the preliminary objection. 3. In the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director 1991(1) UPLBEC 896 vide para 13 the Full Bench of this Court has laid it down as under; The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court noted down lead to an irresistible conclusion that the High Court must not allow its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be invoked if the petitioner has got an alternative remedy and such remedy is not pleaded and proved to be inadequate or inefficacious or it is not established from the material on record that there exist exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances to deviate from the well settled normal rule of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy and permit him to bypass the alternative remedy. The hurdle of alternative remedy cannot be allowed to be skipped over lightly on a casual and bald statement in the petition that there is no other equally efficacious or adequate alternative remedy than to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea. 4. The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 39199 and 2191992 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. has alleged in the petition vide paragraph 5, 10 & 11 thereof that the copies of material document relied against petitioner as well as copy of the enquiry officer's report forming the basis of orders of punishment Annexure 1 and appellate order Annexure II had not been supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner had not been given opportunity of challenging or for giving explanation to or controverting the report inspite requests being made by the petitioner for supply thereof. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is settled principle of law that in the cases where the Enquiry Officer is different one from a punishing authority then in that case the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer has to be supplied to delinquent officer by the punishing authority and petitioner i.e. delinquent officer had to be given the opportunity, reasonable one, to have his say or make comments thereon if he so desires, before that Enquiry report is to be relied or considered by punishing authority in determining if charges against delinquent officers have been established & if the delinquent officer is to be punished. A perusal of allegations of paras 5, 10, 11 of the writ petition unless controverted and are found to be incorrect and wrong, make out a prima facie case of violation of principles of natural justice. So in view of the above, it will be a case of violation of principles of natural justice and failure to afford reasonable opportunity as laid down in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan 1991 (1)(SCC) page 588, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that nonfurnishing of enquiry report of delinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice & rendering the final order invalid. 6. Alternative remedy is per se no bar to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to the exercise thereof. It is a self imposed rule of caution and the high court may refuse to exercise the discretionary power vested in the High Court as a rule where equally efficacious alternative remedy is available subject to certain well defined exceptions or exceptional circumstances. It is a self imposed rule of caution and the high court may refuse to exercise the discretionary power vested in the High Court as a rule where equally efficacious alternative remedy is available subject to certain well defined exceptions or exceptional circumstances. 7. In the case of State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC page 86), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law to the effect that where the order is per se without jurisdiction or the order impugned has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and where the order impugned suffers from a breach of law and touches the conscience of the court, it is open to court and is duty of court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The principle of law to the same effect with reference to the effect of availability of an alternative remedy on the question of maintainability of Writ petition or exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution by High Court has been laid down in the case of Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Muzaffar Nagar Zila Parishad ( AIR 1969 SC 556 ) the relevant portion thereof reads as under; There are at least two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. In the first place, it is well settled that where proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court under Article 226 for issuing appropriate writ for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent, without his being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course (see the decision of this Court in Carl. Still G.M B.H. v. Stale of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1615 and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 603 = ( AIR 1955 SC 661 ). In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice (See 1958 SCR 595 , 605 = ( AIR 1958 SC 86 to 93). 9. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 603 = ( AIR 1955 SC 661 ). In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice (See 1958 SCR 595 , 605 = ( AIR 1958 SC 86 to 93). 9. In this connection the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred with approval, the observation made by Kings Bench Division in the case of King v. Postmaster General exparte Carmichael (1928() KB 291) and Rex v. Wandsworth Justices Exparte Road 1942(1) KB 281. 10. In the present petition, it is alleged that the principles of natural justice have violated as the copy of the enquiry report sought to be relied by punishing authority has not been supplied to him. The correctness of this allegation will be seen and judged after filing the counter & rejoinderaffidavit. The petitioner's case and the allegations made in the petition supported by affidavit have to be considered at this stage, which has been done only for the purpose to see and find out if this court should entertain the petition or throw the petitioner to alternative relief. 11. In view of the above, I find vide paragraph 5, 10 and 11 of the writ petition and the grounds 'B' and 'D' that it is a case of the violation of principles of natural justice and so the alleged bar of the alternative remedy does not come in the petitioner's way & petition cannot be thrown on that ground. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties is without substance and is rejected and it is held that the petition can be entertained and is entertainable by this Court and so is being admitted. Let the order of admission be incorporated on the back side of the proper page of writ petition. (Prel. objection overruled)