Judgment S.Panda, J. As both the Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and filed by one person, the same are taken up for hearing together. 2. W.P.(C) No.21758 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the Chief Executive, Odisha Space Applications Centre opposite party no.3 to re-enquire into the Disciplinary Proceeding for the interest of natural justice and to quash the enquiry report under Annexures-8 and 14. 2.1 Similarly W.P.(C) No.12286 of 2013 has been filed by the same petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 22.5.2013 under Annexure-7 passed by opposite party no.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Technical Assistant under opposite party no.3 on 29.6.1985. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Scientist (SD) on 07.10.1994. While continuing as such the Government of Odisha in the Department of Science and Technology vide order dated 17.10.2007 entrusted the petitioner with the additional charge of the post of Chief Executive, Odisha Space Applications Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘OSAC’) in addition to his own duties until a regular Chief Executive is posted. He continued in the said post till 31.8.2008. After appointment of the regular Chief Executive, the petitioner continued as Scientist (SD) in OSAC. A Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by opposite party no.3 for misconduct on two grounds. Pending drawl of Disciplinary Proceeding the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 18.4.2011 with immediate effect. Thereafter charges were framed on 21.5.2011 against the petitioner under Rule 15 of Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1962 on the allegation of (i) breach of trust, immoral and unethical activity amount to serious misconduct and (ii) violation of official rules, exercising powers beyond delegated authority, thus committing gross impropriety without having authority to do so. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 18.6.2011 however, opposite party no.3 being not satisfied with the reply proceeded with the enquiry. Mr. E.L.Yangar Aiyer, Conservator of Forest was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Chief Executive of OSAC. During enquiry, the petitioner submitted several applications to the Enquiry Officer for supply of documents on the basis of which charges were framed and wanted to examine some witnesses in support of his case. Mr. E.L.Yangar Aiyer, Conservator of Forest was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Chief Executive of OSAC. During enquiry, the petitioner submitted several applications to the Enquiry Officer for supply of documents on the basis of which charges were framed and wanted to examine some witnesses in support of his case. However, the Enquiry Officer did not supply the vital documents to prove the case and the petitioner was also not allowed to examine his witnesses. During pendency of the enquiry the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.16673 of 2011 challenging the order of suspension. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 11.7.2011 with an observation that the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months. Opposite party no.3 vide order dated 12.3.2012 directed that pending finalization of the Disciplinary Proceedings, the petitioner who was placed under suspension is hereby reinstated in service from his date of joining. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 06.9.2012 to the Disciplinary Authority – opposite party no.3. The petitioner after getting the enquiry report made an appeal before opposite party no.1 on 21.9.2012 seeking a direction to opposite party no.3 to conduct re-enquiry. Opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 17.10.2012 issued a letter to the petitioner intimating that as per the communication made by the appellate authority the petitioner may represent before the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate action. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 20.10.2012 before the Disciplinary Authority with a prayer to drop Charge No.1. Opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 01.11.2012 informed the petitioner to submit his views or comments if any on the enquiry report latest by 07.11.2012. The petitioner submitted his views on 06.11.2012 stating that since he has not been involved with any financial irregularity and moral turpitude, Charge No.1 be dropped and as no witness has been examined on his behalf principles of natural justice has been violated. The petitioner submitted his views on 06.11.2012 stating that since he has not been involved with any financial irregularity and moral turpitude, Charge No.1 be dropped and as no witness has been examined on his behalf principles of natural justice has been violated. On receipt of the views submitted by the petitioner, opposite party no.3 vide his letter dated 09.11.2012 intimated the petitioner that it has been proposed to award major punishments such as suspension, reduction to the lower grade or post or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale, removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment and removal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.21758 of 2012 with a prayer to direct the Chief Executive, OSAC -opposite party no.3 to re-enquire into the Disciplinary Proceeding for the interest of natural justice and to quash the enquiry report under Annexures-8 and 14. On 13.5.2013 opposite party no.3 directed the petitioner to submit his reply to second show cause notice by 20.5.2013. On 20.5.2013 the petitioner filed a time petition before opposite party no.3 to grant three weeks time to file his reply to the second show cause notice. Opposite party no.3 vide order dated 22.5.2013 while rejecting the time petition filed by the petitioner dismissed him from service with an observation that the period of suspension of the petitioner will be treated as such. Hence W.P.(C) No.12286 of 2013. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed by opposite party no.3 inter alia stating that the petitioner instead of filing his reply to the second show cause notice has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21758 of 2012 with a prayer for re-enquiry of the Disciplinary Proceeding and to quash the enquiry report. It is also stated that the intention of the petitioner is only to delay the enquiry proceeding by filing repeated Writ Petitions. It is further stated that the Governing Body of ORSAC in its meeting dated 06.3.1998 decided that the Chief Executive is the employer and Disciplinary Authority in respect of all the employees of the centre. On any disciplinary action the Chairman, ORSAC will be the Appellate Authority and the Governing Body will be the Reviewing Authority. It is further stated that the Governing Body of ORSAC in its meeting dated 06.3.1998 decided that the Chief Executive is the employer and Disciplinary Authority in respect of all the employees of the centre. On any disciplinary action the Chairman, ORSAC will be the Appellate Authority and the Governing Body will be the Reviewing Authority. It is stated that without availing the alternative remedy of appeal and revision as stipulated in the Service Rules the petitioner has directly approached this Court, therefore, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The petitioner not being a Government Servant or holder of post under the State Government or the Central Government and opposite party no.3 not being a State Government, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that alternative remedy is not a bar for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if the order passed by any authority having no jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that during enquiry no witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and no documents were exhibited. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence in the enquiry record to find the petitioner guilty of the charges. It is stated that when opposite party no.3 has no power to initiate a proceeding against the alleged misconduct committed by a person appointed by the Secretary to Government in Science and Technology Department as in-charge Chief Executive then mere participation in proceeding cannot confer jurisdiction on opposite party no.3 to be the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the order of dismissal is liable to be interfered with. In support of his submission he has relied on the decisions reported in 1981 (3) SLR 189, 1983 (3) SLR 714 (Delhi), (2010) 2 SCC 772 , 2004 (I) OLR (SC) 81 and (2012) 4 SCC 307 . 5.1 In the case of Babaji Charan Rout Vs. State of Odisha and others reported in 1981 (3) SLR 189 this Court held that the subsequent authorization cannot take away the constitutional guarantee envisaged under Article 311. 5.2 In the case of S.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1983 (3) SLR 714 (Delhi) the Court held that appointing authority to be determined from the point of time of appointment and not at the time of passing order of punishment. 5.2 In the case of S.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1983 (3) SLR 714 (Delhi) the Court held that appointing authority to be determined from the point of time of appointment and not at the time of passing order of punishment. 5.3 In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 the Supreme Court held that by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The Inquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 5.4 In the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others reported in 2004 (I) OLR (SC) 81 the Supreme Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or; iii) where the orders of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction on the vires of the Act is challenged. 5.5 In the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. 5.5 In the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307 the Supreme Court held that there can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a court of tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in-executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 in support of the order of dismissal from service relied on a decision in the case of Lucknow K.Gramin Bank and another Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in 2013 (139) FLR 290 wherein the Court held that the well ingrained principle of law is that it is the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to a delinquent employee keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee. Courts cannot assume and usurp the function of the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner need not be interfered with. 7. Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that during enquiry no witness was examined and no documents were exhibited by the prosecution, even the request of the petitioner to put some questions to the charge-sheeted witnesses was not allowed. Copy of the documents as applied for by the petitioner was not supplied to him, which amounts to irregular enquiry and the evidence of the charge-sheeted witnesses need be ignored. Therefore, in absence of any evidence only on the basis of allegation, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report which is illegal and not sustainable in law. The Enquiry Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter as he is not a part and parcel of OSAC. 7.1 There is no dispute that OSAC is a Society under the administrative control of Science and Technology Department of the Government of Odisha. The Enquiry Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter as he is not a part and parcel of OSAC. 7.1 There is no dispute that OSAC is a Society under the administrative control of Science and Technology Department of the Government of Odisha. According to Rule 21 (h) of the Rules and Regulations of ORSAC the Governing Body may create administrative, technical, ministerial and other posts under the Centre and make appointments thereof provided that appointment of the Chief Executive of the Centre shall be made by the Department of Science and Technology and Environment on such terms and conditions as Department of Science and Technology and Environment deems fit. The petitioner while continuing as Scientist (SD) he was kept in additional charge of the post of Chief Executive, OSAC in addition to his own duties till a regular Chief Executive is posted. From the above it is crystal clear that the Society is coming under the instrumentality of the State and is amenable to Writ jurisdiction in view of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7.2 The Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. Vs. B.Karunakar etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 held that when the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt of innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 7.3 Further the Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Vs. B.R.Gupta reported in AIR 1994 SC 1515 held that in a Disciplinary Proceeding if opportunity to defend is not given or enquiry report is not supplied to delinquent officer the dismissal based on such enquiry is not proper. Parties agreeing to affording of fresh opportunity to dismissed officer to file his show cause in response to second notice and consideration of mater afresh on merits. Parties agreeing to affording of fresh opportunity to dismissed officer to file his show cause in response to second notice and consideration of mater afresh on merits. Directions issued to start Disciplinary Proceedings from the stage of serving second notice. A fresh opportunity shall be given to the employee to file his show cause in pursuance of the second notice and the matter shall be considered afresh on merits. 7.4 Also in the case of Union of India Vs. Y.S.Sandhu reported in AIR 2009 SC 161 the Apex Court held that if defect is found in enquiry proceedings, direction ought to be given that enquiry proceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood before alleged vulnerability surfaced. 8. In view of the discussions made above and the settled position of law, this Court while setting aside the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by the Chief Executive -opposite party no.3 dismissing the petitioner from service of OSAC directs the said opposite party to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the petitioner from the stage of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.