RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in Shri Krishna Adarsh College, Baragaon, District Jhansi in 1974. It is averred that the petitioner incurred displeasure of the then principal Sri Radha Charan Badal and was served with a charge-sheet dated 30-4-88 by which he was suspended with immediate effect. The charge-sheet has been appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. In brief the charges against the petitioner were that he had proceeded on learned leave from 6-11- 1987 to 6-12-1987, as such his salary bill could not be prepared for the period he was on leave. On his return the petitioner abused the Principal and threatened to take revenge, as such a FIR was lodged by the Principal before the SHO of P. S. Baragaon. After the FIR was lodged the petitioner ran away in hiding. He did not return and remained absent till 21-12-1987. A further charge against the petitioner is that though he remained absent till 21-12-87 and gave an application on 22-12-87 stating therein that he was suffering from fever and was not in a position to attend the college, he remained absent till 22-3- 88. The petitioner in the absence of Principal signed the attendance register on 23-3-88 inspite of the fact that the Head Clerk asked him not to do so. Thereafter, Sri Shyam Lal Kushwaha, a teacher of the college, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On the report of Inquiry Officer dated 5-1-89, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Principal vide order dated 1-2-1989. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20-2-1989 under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the Committee of Management which was also dismissed by an order dated 24-7-89. 4. The petitioner made a representation on 19/21-8-89 before the DIOS but the same was not decided for several months. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of termination dated 1-2-89. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16-12- 1989 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi to decide the representation expeditiously. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of termination dated 1-2-89. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16-12- 1989 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi to decide the representation expeditiously. The District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi vide order dated 6-2-1990 also upheld the order of termination dated 1-2-1989 and resolution No. 5 of the Committee of Management dated 23-7-89 terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner moved this Court for quashing the orders dated 6-2-1990, 24-7-1989 and 2-1-1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi, Committee of Management and the Principal of the college respectively. He further prayed for direction to the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary and future salary as and when it accrues to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in service since February, 1989. The Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi have approved the termination of the petitioner finding him guilty his conduct being not conducive the discipline of the institution. The behaviour and action of an employee of an educational institution should be an example for the students. From the records it appears that some students present there had somehow intercepted the petitioner and prevented him from beating the principal in presence of teachers, staff and other students. 6. The decision in this case would rest upon the findings of fact as to whether the services of the petitioner have been terminated due to displeasure of the then Principal failing to take work from him at his residence alleged by the petitioner or the petitioner had, in fact, committed serious misconduct for which his services have been terminated. The question of quantum of punishment is also utmost importance in the facts and the circumstances of the case. All these questions require taking of evidence and going into the findings of fact, which cannot be done by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031 , has laid down certain principles for deciding the cases under Industrial Jurisprudence, in cases even where the enquiry had or had not been held. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031 , has laid down certain principles for deciding the cases under Industrial Jurisprudence, in cases even where the enquiry had or had not been held. 7. The principles of service law cannot be applied under the labour law and even if order of dismissal has been passed without holding any enquiry, it cannot be set aside solely on that ground. If no enquiry is found to be held or is found to be defective, then employer has right to lead evidence before the labour Court to substantiate the charges has has been held by this Court in J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Kanpur v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 (76) FLR, P 372 and Cooper Engineering Work Limited v. P. P. Munder, AIR 1975 SC 1900 . 8. In the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others, 1991 UPLBEC 898, it has been held in paras 9 and 13 of the judgment as under : " (9) Having regard to the above noticed decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India, it is ruled that where a complete machinery/remedy for obtaining relief is provided in statute and such machinery and remedy fully covers the grievance of the petitioner then, unless extra-ordinary or exceptional circumstances exist or the machinery remedy does not cover the grievance of the petitioner or the machinery or remedy is demonstrated and proved by the petitioner to be inadequate or inefficacious, the petitioner has to be relegated to the alternative remedy and the Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievance by the petitioner. (13) The decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India and this Court noted above, 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 if 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 by-pass 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. " 9. In the case of Scooters India and others v. Vijay E. V. Elder, 1988 SCC (L-S) 1611, the Apex Court has been held as under in para 2 of the judgment : " (2) The above facts alone are sufficient to indicate that there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition directly for adjudication of an industrial dispute involving the termination or disputed question of fact for which remedy under the industrial laws are available to the workman. That apart, the writ petition was filed more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action is said to have arisen and there being no cogent explanation for the delay, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches alone. It is also extra-ordinary for the High Court to have held clause 3. 9. 12 of the Standing orders as invalid. Learned Counsel for the respondent rightly made no attempt to support this part of the High Courts order. In view of the fact that we are setting aside the High Courts judgment. We need not deal with this aspect in detail. " 10. The petitioner is not in service for about twelve years and his termination has also been approved by the DIOS. In view of the fact that we are setting aside the High Courts judgment. We need not deal with this aspect in detail. " 10. The petitioner is not in service for about twelve years and his termination has also been approved by the DIOS. He has been found guilty of gross misconduct of taking law in his own hands and disturbing the peace, tranquillity and discipline of the institution. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. No other point has been pressed before me. It has, however, been prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the labour Court. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed on merits. No order as to costs. The petitioner may avail alternative remedy, if he is so advised. Petition dismissed. .