Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-14) where by the petitioner has been inflicted with the nenaltv of deduction of pension by 1% on permanent basis. 2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.1.2001 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of some of the charges, assigned reason and gave to the petitioner the second show cause notice and proposed 5% reduction from the amount of the pension under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The relevant portion of the second show cause notice reads as follows : "Accordingly, while enclosing an attested copy of enquiry report of Enquiring Officer, second show cause notice is served upon Sri Madan Mohan Lall Das, the then Retired Elecl. Superintending Engineer (u/s) Patna Elecl. Circle, Patna asking him to submit his reply positively within fifteen (15) days as to why proposed punishment should not be awarded to him. If he fails to submit reply within stipulated period it will be deemed that he has nothing to say in his defence. Order: Ordered that a signed copy of this resolution along with attested copy of enquiry report be forwarded to Sri Madan Mohan Lall Das, Retired Elect. Superintending Engineer (u/s), Patna Elecl. Circle, Patna." 3. Petitioner submitted his show cause and the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the reply given by the petitioner, imposed punishment of withholding of 1% pension on permanent basis. It is the stand of the petitioner that while giving second show cause notice, petitioner was not given opportunity to satisfy the disciplinary authority that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is just and proper. From the reading of the show cause notice, it is 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board in which a preliminary objection has been taken in regard to the maintainability of this writ application. From the reading of the show cause notice, it is 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board in which a preliminary objection has been taken in regard to the maintainability of this writ application. It has been contended that the petitioner has remedy of appeal before the Board and as such, it is not a fit case in which jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fit to be exercised. Besides the aforesaid plea the respondents which include the Board and the Chairman, had taken their stand in regard to the merits of the case of the party. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board submits that there being remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not fit to be exercised. 6. Mr. Kanth, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the respondents having taken their stand on the merits of the case, it shall be inexpedient to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, on the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Respondents, in the counter affidavit, have sought to deny the petitioner the relief claimed in the present application on merits. It is well settled that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of jurisdiction by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is often said, it is a rule of discretion and not of jurisdiction and this Court for exercise of its jurisdiction had imposed upon itself such limitation. In the face of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to dismiss this writ application on the aforesaid ground and relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Hence, I overrule this preliminary objection of the respondents. 8. Mr.Kanth raised appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised various submissions to assail the impugned order but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or to answer the same. 9. Mr. Hence, I overrule this preliminary objection of the respondents. 8. Mr.Kanth raised appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised various submissions to assail the impugned order but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or to answer the same. 9. Mr. Kanth submits that the principle of natural justice demand that before the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he must assign tentative reasons for disagreement and give opportunity to the delinquent employee to satisfy that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper. He submits that mere giving opportunity to the petitioner against the proposed punishment does not meet the requirement of the principle of natural justice. 10. I had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Ranjan Kumar V/s. Nalanda Gramin Bank & ors. reported in 2003 (1) P.L.J.R. 722 . In the said case it has been held as follows : "From the authorities of the Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court referred to above, it is evident that in case, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer, he has to record tentative reasons and communicate the same to the delinquent employee giving opportunity to him to satisfy that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is just and proper. At this stage, the disciplinary authority cannot record a conclusive finding even after assigning the reasons and in case, he does so and gives opportunity to the delinquent employee, to show cause only against the proposed punishment, same shall vitiate the order of punishment as in such a situation, the disciplinary authority had recorded the finding of guilt in disagreement with the conclusion of the enquiry officer without giving opportunity to the delinquent employee. In my opinion, mere recording of reasons of disagreement does not satisfy the requirement of principle of natural justice but the principle of natural justice demands that before recordingthe finding of guilt in disagreement with the opinion of the enquiry officer, opportunity must be given to the delinquent employee. Here, in the present case, the disciplinary authority had stepped into the second stage of asking show cause against the proposed punishment without taking the first step of giving opportunity to the delinquent employee to satisfy that the finding of the enquiry officer is correct. 11. Here, in the present case, the disciplinary authority had stepped into the second stage of asking show cause against the proposed punishment without taking the first step of giving opportunity to the delinquent employee to satisfy that the finding of the enquiry officer is correct. 11. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by this court after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. V/s. Kunj Behari Mishra and others reported in (1998)7 SCC 84 . 12. Undisputedly, the disciplinary authority had not given opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper and this itself vitiates the impugned order. The respondents, if they so desires, may proceed with the enquiry from a stage subsequent to the enquiry report. As the petitioner has already retired from service, in case the respondents intend to proceed against the petitioner, they must conclude the entire exercise within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, for any reason, if respondents are not in a position to conclude the proceeding within the aforesaid period, nothing shall prevent them from seeking extension of time, otherwise the action of the respondents shall be viewed seriously. 13. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-14) is quashed with the observation aforesaid.