JUDGMENT 1. - In these two petitions, the petitioners have been departmentally punished. By the order impugned, their services have been terminated. An appeal against such order of termination is maintainable under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 2. An objection has been raised for maintainability of the petition, in view of the existence of alternative remedy. 3. Replying to this contention, Mr. Mridul, Sr. Counsel, relied upon a decision of this Court reported in RLR 1988 (1), 998, where it has been observed by this Court that in cases were major penalty has been imposed, without holding enquiry under rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, a writ petition can be entertained in spite of the availability of the alternate remedy of appeal under the C.C.A. Rules. The learned counsel then submitted that apart from this Division Bench judgment, it is the consistent view of the Supreme Court of India that in cases, where an order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, or is void for want of enquiry preceding the punishment order or the order having been made by person incompetent to do so, alternate remedy should not be raised as a bar. 4. In the present case, enquiry has been held. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is alleged that the appointing authority is not the authority by whom the order of termination is passed. 5. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, appearing for the Corporation, has, however, contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1512, alternate remedy is a total bar. The Supreme Court has observed in that decision that where remedy by way of appeal under the Act is available, writ petition challenging the order of reinstatement, is not maintainable. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that where a statute provides for an alternate remedy, the party aggrieved by any order must avail of that remedy. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that these petitions are not maintainable directly. 7. It is to be seen that, however, there is no obvious divergence of views on this point and in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, it can be bonafide believed that a writ petition may be directly entertained. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that these petitions are not maintainable directly. 7. It is to be seen that, however, there is no obvious divergence of views on this point and in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, it can be bonafide believed that a writ petition may be directly entertained. It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioners were advised to take the remedy of writ petition directly, instead of going through appeals. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the petitioners, moving the High Court directly, is nothing else than bonafide. It would, therefore, be in fitness of things that the appeal is entertained on merits by the Corporation. 8. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed. 9. The petitioners should filed appeal within one month. *******