JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioner through medium of writ petition on hand seeks quashment of Order No. HCI/ADMN/DEL/54 Dated March 02, 2004 (Annexure H to the writ petition), whereby, he has been removed from service. He further seeks Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to treat him in-service and release all emoluments and other benefits due to him in wake of quashment of the aforementioned order. Petition arises in the factual background detailed hereafter. Petitioner was in the year 1983 appointed as House Keeping Attendant in Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar, a Unit of Hotel Corporation of India. He continued on this post till 1986, when he was adjusted as Painter in the Engineering wing of the Hotel. He earned promotions while working in the aforementioned Hotel from time to time and attained the position of Civil Supervisor in the year 2000. He while working in the respondent Hotel took part in the activities of Employees Union and was elected as President, Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Union sometime before 1995-96. 2. The Officers of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar in 1995-96 recruited 44 persons as against 7 available vacancies under OBC Category at different levels in the Hotel. The recruitment was made in violation of Recruitment Rules and without advertising the posts filled up. Shri N. Bhatra, Manager (O) on 30-11-95 constituted a Committee comprising of MS Salmani (Food and Beverage Controller), Shri K Prasad (Assistant Personal Officer) and Mr. Peerzada Faiz Ahmad (Lobby Manager) to conduct interview and empanel the candidates for the posts sought to be filled from the candidates under OBC Category. The Committee conducted interview on 2nd September 1995, and in its report dated 4.12.1995 recommended 28 candidates for recruitment. The recommendation was approved by Shri N. Bhatra Manager (O) and appointment orders issued by K. Prasad (Assistant Personal Officer) in favour of selected candidates. However, out of 28 appointed candidates only 27 accepted appointment. A number of non-OBC/under-qualified and under-aged candidates were recruited in contravention of Rules and Regulations. 3. The officers of the Hotel thereafter appointed 13 more candidates under ST/OBC Category. The appointment orders in favour of these candidates were issued by Shri Misbah Shawl (Personal officer). The appointments again were made in violation of Recruitment Rules and without following due procedure. A number of non-OBC/under-qualified and under-aged candidates were recruited in contravention of Rules and Regulations. 3. The officers of the Hotel thereafter appointed 13 more candidates under ST/OBC Category. The appointment orders in favour of these candidates were issued by Shri Misbah Shawl (Personal officer). The appointments again were made in violation of Recruitment Rules and without following due procedure. Appointments were made after the Employees Union headed by petitioner demanded filling up of 12 posts reserved for ST/OBC Category at an earliest and in a meeting held at Delhi on 29th May, 1996 and 30th May, 1996 by the Hotel Management and the Union leaders including petitioner, it was decided to accede to the Union demand and fill up aforementioned posts. 4. The aforementioned appointments made under OBC Category in 1995/96 were brought to the notice of Management of Hotel Corporation of India. As the appointments made involved gross violation of Rules and Regulations and also a heavy financial loss to the Hotel Corporation of India, the Management vide memo dated 10th January, 2001 directed disciplinary proceedings under Regulation No. 80 HCI, Employees Services Regulations against the Officers/Officials responsible for the appointments. Enquiry was also directed against the present petitioner and a Single Member Enquiry Committee consisting of Mr. OM Solanki constituted vide memo No. HO/ADMN/2259 dated 29th May, 2001/1st June, 2001, replaced by Mr. P.S. D'souza Deputy General manager P&IR(O). Petitioner faced following charges: "(i) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (ii) Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct. (iii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour." 5. The Single Member Enquiry Committee enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner and the Committee found petitioner guilty of following misconduct: "(i) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (ii) Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct. (iii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour." 6. Petitioner in his response to the Enquiry report dated 27th February, 2004, denying to have any role in the appointments, pointed out that the appointment orders were made by the Personal Office of the Hotel and none of the appointment orders had his signature, that he represented against appointments and that the evidence recorded did not prove his involvement in the matter. 7. 7. The disciplinary Authority i.e. Vice President, Administration, Hotel Corporation of India not impressed with the explanation tendered by the petitioner, vide Order No. HCI/ADM/DEL/78 dated March 22, 2004 awarded petitioner punishment of "removal from service" from Hotel Corporation Limited with immediate effect. 8. Petitioner questions the order dated March 22, 2004 on the grounds that evidence collected by the Single Member Enquiry Committee, did not point to his involvement in violating Rules and Regulations, or in appointments in question or for that matter any misconduct alleged against him. The conclusion drawn by the Committee, according to the petitioner, are based on no evidence and therefore unjustified and perverse. It is pleaded that he was not part of the Committee asked to conduct interview, to make selection, approve the select list or issuance of appointment orders and therefore was not to be held responsible for any infringement of Rules and Regulations. Petitioner states that even if, he is found to have as President, Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Union, Srinagar made a demand for filling up ST/OBC vacancies, he is not to be held liable for failure on the part of the Appointing Authority to advertise the available positions, scrutinize the academic and other certificates of the candidates participating in the selection process or non-adherence to the Rules and Regulations. Petitioner pleads that Single Member Enquiry Committee report because of perversity calls for judicial review and so does the order based on the enquiry report. 9. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was a privy to illegal promotions and appointment orders made by the then General Manager Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar. It is stated that the petitioner went to Delhi to hold a meeting with officers of the Hotel and the appointments were made pursuant to agreement entered into by the Management of the Hotel and the delegation of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Union headed by the petitioner. While admitting that the petitioner did not issue appointment orders, respondents plead that petitioner all the same was part of the conspiracy to make illegal promotions, regularizations and appointments in me Hotel. It is pleaded that as the other officials responsible for the appointments have been awarded penalty under rules, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance about the conspiracy and escape major penalty. It is pleaded that as the other officials responsible for the appointments have been awarded penalty under rules, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance about the conspiracy and escape major penalty. It is pleaded that the matter independent of departmental enquiry, was also referred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for enquiry and the Bureau in its report recommended major penalty against five officers of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar as also the petitioner. Respondents in their reply insist that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to put forth his stand and the Order impugned does not warrant interference on any of the grounds urged in the petition. The petition is also resisted on the ground of, petitioner's failure to avail alternate remedy. 10. Petitioner in his rejoinder insists is that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar for invoking writ jurisdiction, moreso, when violation of fundamental rights is alleged. Petitioner points out that as the reply filed by the respondent is not supported by affidavit, it does not warrant any consideration. Petitioner denies that he kept back any of the important facts having bearing on outcome of the petition. Petitioner reiterates that he had no role in the selection process or appointments made by the officers of the Central Lake View Hotel, Srinagar and he was unjustifiably awarded punishment and removed from service. 11. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of judicial review is not to sit in appeal over the findings returned in a departmental enquiry. The Court cannot assume the role of an Appellate Authority, scan the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and embark on an exercise to find out whether the Court would have reached a conclusion different from one arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. The Court in exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of India, read with Section 103, Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is only to examine the record to find out whether the procedural rights of the delinquent official have been adhered to, and whether the results of enquiry are tainted with arbitrariness or perversity. 12. The Court in exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of India, read with Section 103, Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is only to examine the record to find out whether the procedural rights of the delinquent official have been adhered to, and whether the results of enquiry are tainted with arbitrariness or perversity. 12. In Mohan Lal Saraf v. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (sic) relying on the law laid down in Sudesh Kumar Puri v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1974 JKLR 363 held "........This court ruled that the High Court will not refuse to interfere in a case and will undoubtedly interfere in all such cases where it is found that the domestic Tribunal has acted on no legal evidence or inadmissible evidence, or whether the departmental authority has held the proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or whether the inference drawn from the material on record by the domestic Tribunal is so arbitrary or perverse that no reasonable person can arrive at that conclusion". Learned single Judge observed: 13. "I do agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that a domestic Tribunal is not bound to observe the rules of evidence as laid down in the Evidence Act and also that adequacy or reliability of evidence relied upon by a competent Tribunal in a departmental enquiry cannot be canvassed in High Court in writ proceedings and that the High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and substitute its own finding for the finding of the Tribunal. But there is a cardinal exception to this salutary rule that" a court can in writ proceedings interfere where the impugned findings recorded by the Tribunal are not supported by any evidence or where the conclusions of a domestic forum based on such evidence are so arbitrary and unwarranted that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. It is also well settled that if the finding of fact is based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari". The principle of law also finds expression in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1277 . It is also well settled that if the finding of fact is based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari". The principle of law also finds expression in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1277 . Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the question of nature of disciplinary proceedings before domestic Tribunal and extent of scrutiny to be made by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction held: 18. "Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallized by judicial decisions. The first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charges against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place or proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , "the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules." The Court recording disagreement with the suggestion that the High Court ought not to have gone through the evidence recorded by the Domestic Tribunal to conclude, whether the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would stand legal scrutiny, observed: 24. "The desirability of writing a self-contained speaking order in disciplinary proceeding culminating in an order of removal of the delinquent from service, cannot be over-emphasized. It is true that the impugned orders do not fully measure up to this devoutly desired standard. Nevertheless, they do contain a bald and general allusion to the primary facts, and a cryptic inference there from. There is no specific reference to or discussion of the evidence. It is true that the impugned orders do not fully measure up to this devoutly desired standard. Nevertheless, they do contain a bald and general allusion to the primary facts, and a cryptic inference there from. There is no specific reference to or discussion of the evidence. The High Court, therefore, examined the record of the disciplinary tribunal, not with a view to make out or reconstruct a new case, but only to see whether there was some evidence of the primary facts relied upon by the domestic tribunal in support of its conclusion. We do not see any impropriety in the course adopted by the High Court". 13. Let us examine the petitioner's case, on the anvil of the principles laid down in aforementioned reported cases and reiterated thereafter in a number of authoritative judicial pronouncements. The attention must first go to the facts of the case and misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner admittedly was working as Painter in respondent Hotel on the date he was removed vide order impugned in the petition. He did not hold any position in the Personal Department of the respondent Hotel and had no role in recruitment of the Hotel staff. He, however, was a Trade Union leader-President, Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Association on the relevant date. 14. Petitioner was charged with following misconduct: "(i) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (ii) Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct. (iii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behavior." The instances of misconduct, prima facie, are vague and ambiguous. The object of framing a formal charge or concretizing the instances of alleged misconduct is to make delinquent official aware of the exact nature of misconduct alleged against him, so that he can organize his defense, and convince the Enquiry Officer and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority that the alleged misconduct is devoid of any substance and that the enquiry proceedings are required to be dropped and he or she absolved of all charges. The charges framed against the petitioner in the present case and the instances of misconduct alleged against him, hardly convey what exactly is alleged against the petitioner. He is alleged to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation without detailing the acts done by him. The charges framed against the petitioner in the present case and the instances of misconduct alleged against him, hardly convey what exactly is alleged against the petitioner. He is alleged to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation without detailing the acts done by him. A bare look at other two charges reveals that the Authority framing the charge is not itself clear and sure about what is exactly alleged against the petitioner. He is alleged to have made abetment of any act that amounts to misconduct or made attempt at abetment of any act as amounts to misconduct. What did the Authority framing the charge mean by any act cannot be deciphered by official of the respondent department much less made clear to the petitioner. Petitioner is also alleged to have been guilty of commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior. Here expression any act must have left petitioner guessing about the exact nature of the misconduct alleged against him. Petitioner, therefore, has been grossly prejudiced by framing vague and ambiguous charges against him. 15. The sum and substance of allegation of misconduct alleged against the Manager (o) and other officers and officials of the respondent Corporation is that they made all the 44 appointments in violation of Rules and against the quota, having least regard to eligibility criteria prescribed under rules and without advertising the positions sought to be filled up. 16. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appointments were made after the Selection Committee constituted by the Competent Authority conducted interview of the aspirants and forwarded the selection list to the Appointing Authority. The selection list was acted upon and appointment orders were issued by the Officers of the Personnel Department of the respondent Corporation. 17. Petitioner was a lower rank employee i.e. Painter in the respondent Corporation. He admittedly had no role in conduct of interview, award of marks/points to the candidates, who appeared before the Selection Committee and preparation of the selection list. He had no role in the approval of the select lists, issuance of appointment orders in favour of selected candidates, scrutiny of academic certificates and other testimonials of the selected candidates. He admittedly had no role in conduct of interview, award of marks/points to the candidates, who appeared before the Selection Committee and preparation of the selection list. He had no role in the approval of the select lists, issuance of appointment orders in favour of selected candidates, scrutiny of academic certificates and other testimonials of the selected candidates. The only role in the recruitment in question, attributed to the petitioner is that he along with other office bearers of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Association projected a demand for filling up post(s) under ST/OBC Category. The evidence recorded by the Single Member Enquiry Committee revealed that the petitioner as President headed a delegation of Employees Union to Delhi met the Management and the Management acceded to the request of the delegation, to fill up 12 post(s) ST/OBC Category. 18. It would be appropriate to reproduce the agreement arrived at by the Management with the Union delegation headed by the petitioner on 29th and 30th May, 1996 at Delhi. Hotel Centaur Employee's Union (Regd.) Registration No. 585 Centaur Lake, View, Hotel, Post Box 221 G.P.O. Srinagar Ref. No. _____ Dated 30.05.96 Minutes of meeting held with Union Representatives on 29.05.96 & 30.05.96 The following were present in the meeting:- (i) Mr. N. Batra Manager (O). (ii) Mr. K. Prasad Asstt. Personnel Officer (O). (iii) Mr. Abdul Majid Union President. (iv) Mr. Bilal General Sect. (v) Mr. R.L. Pandita Liason officer The following points were discussed and agreed by and between the parties. Joining OBC/SC/Physically handicapped It was agreed by and between the parties that letters of joining of OBC/SC/PH should be done before the Promotion letters of Internal employees. Union demanded that 12 posts is reserved for ST/OBC should be filled up at the earliest. Mr. Batra agreed on this issue within a week. CBI Report to the extent it relates to the petitioner also needs to be noticed. It reads: Sh. Ab. Mazid Bhatt (A-6) accompanied by other union officials contacted him and told him to fill further posts under OBC Sh. IA Khan flately refused them and told that he was not in position to oblige the union, for that they have to contact Sh. N. Batra (A-1). Sh. RL Pandita contacted Sh. N. Batra at his house and intimated him regarding the development. Sh. N. Batra asked them to come to New Delhi. Sh. Ab. IA Khan flately refused them and told that he was not in position to oblige the union, for that they have to contact Sh. N. Batra (A-1). Sh. RL Pandita contacted Sh. N. Batra at his house and intimated him regarding the development. Sh. N. Batra asked them to come to New Delhi. Sh. Ab. Majid Bhatt (A-6) accompanied by Sh. RL Pandita and Sh. Bilal Ahmed Nazar, General Secretary of the Union left for New Delhi on 27.5.96. The three stayed at Centaur Hotel/N. Delhi. Meeting was held between Sh. N. Batra (A-1), Sh. K. Pershad (A-4), Sh. Ab. Majid Bhatt (A-6). Sh. Roshan Pandita and Sh. Bilal Ahmad Nazar at New Delhi on 29.5.96 and 30.5.96. The minutes of meeting was prepared on 30.5.96 to the effect that 12 posts reserved for ST/OBC should be filled up at the earliest. In the minutes it was also said that Sh. N. Batra (A-1) had agreed on the issue of filling up 12 further posts for OBC. All as mentioned above were signatories of the meeting. After returning to Srinagar on 19.6.96 Sh. AB Majid (A-6) gave a letter to the Personnel Officer Sh. Mishbah Shawl (A-5) for immediate implementation of the minutes of the meeting. It was said that 12 persons under OBC are to be appointed which should be done immediately." 19. From perusal of the minutes of meeting held on 29th and 30th May, 1996, it transpires that the Employees Union Delegation headed by the petitioner and comprising of petitioner and one Mr. Bilal, General Secretary, projected two demands before the Management. The first demand was that promotion of internal employees must wait till joining of new appointees under OBC/SC/PH Category and that the 12 remaining ST/OBC posts should be filled up at an earliest. The Management agreed to the demands made. 20. Petitioner or his colleague Shri Bilal Ahmad, General Secretary of the Employees Union did not suggest a mode of recruitment other than one prescribed under law or asked for any departure from the constitutional mandate and the rules and regulations governing recruitment and appointments. Petitioner and Shri Bilal Ahmad did not recommend one or more candidates for the proposed appointments. They were not custodians of record and therefore not in a position to work out unfilled quota of different categories. 21. Petitioner and Shri Bilal Ahmad did not recommend one or more candidates for the proposed appointments. They were not custodians of record and therefore not in a position to work out unfilled quota of different categories. 21. The fact that Shri N. Batra, Manager (o) constituted a Selection Committee comprising of Shri M.S. Salmani (Manager, Food and Beverage Control), Mr. Peerzada Fayaz Ahmad (Lobby Manager) and Mr. K. Prasad (Assistant Personnel Officer) and the Selection Committee vide communication dated 4.12.1995, forwarded to the Personnel Department, a list of 27 selected candidates, points to the conclusion that the petitioner or any other member of the Union did not recommend any candidate for appointment against the post(s) proposed to be filled up and that the appointments were made purely on the basis of the deliberation of the Selection Committee. 22. The evidence recorded by the Single Member Enquiry Committee does not disclose anything against the petitioner except, that he and other members of the Union made a demand for filling up of ST/OBC Category post(s) with due dispatch and that their demand was accepted by the Management as recorded in minutes dated 29th May, 1996 and 30th May, 1996. The agreement, set into motion selection process, where after, the recruitment in question was made. The evidence of the Single Member Enquiry Committee would therefore not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for violation of rules, indiscipline or loss to the respondent Corporation. In case, the quota set apart for ST/OBC Category was already filled up and no post(s) under ST/OBC Category was available, the Officers of the respondent Corporation ought to have informed the Union delegation accordingly, or even, after minutes were recorded, expressed their inability to fill up the post(s). The Officers of the respondent Corporation having control over the record could have with least difficulty worked out the total number of posts under ST/OBC Category in Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar and the number of post(s) category wise if any, at different levels available for recruitment. Again, once, it was decided to initiate the selection process, it was for the Officers of respondent Corporation who were responsible for making selection, to advertise post(s), so that all eligible candidates got a fair opportunity to compete in the selection process. Again, once, it was decided to initiate the selection process, it was for the Officers of respondent Corporation who were responsible for making selection, to advertise post(s), so that all eligible candidates got a fair opportunity to compete in the selection process. There was no evidence before the Single Member Enquiry Committee to even suggest that petitioner as President of Employees Union at any point of time demanded, let alone, coerced the Officers of the Corporation, to make a departure from the prescribed procedure. 23. There is again no evidence on record to suggest, or substantiate that, petitioner was part of the Committee required to look into and verify the academic and other Certificates of the selected candidate, and allowed even ineligible candidates to get recruited for such post(s) or to over look any deficiency in such Certificates. Petitioner, therefore has been roped in without there being any material in the record that would point to his involvement in the recruitment allegedly made in violation of rules. 24. True that matter was also enquired into by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption, Branch Jammu, Shri S.R. Agarwal SP CBI/ACB Jammu, was not able to collect any material other than the material that finds place in the Enquiry report against the petitioner. It would be advantageous to refer to part of SP CBI/ACB Jammu report in RC.17(A)/98-JMU dated 10.11.1998. "A credible information has been received in this office to the effect that A-1 to A-4 S/Sh. N. Batra, H.S. Salmani, Peerzada Fayaz F&B Controller, Lobby Manager and Asstt. Personal officer (O) respectively in Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar, entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and some unknown persons during 1995-96 and in pursuance of the same they misused their official position and appointed 44 persons under OBC Category in the CLVH Srinagar, as against 7 vacancies requisitioned and approved by Head office in most arbitrary manner, and made the appointments in contravention of the rule, without any advertisement and without the content of the competent authority for pecuniary consideration which put the CLVH, Srinagar, to a pecuniary loss of Rs. 19.07 lacs. The above facts disclose the commission of offence punishable u/S. 120-B RPC & Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, 2006. A regular case is, therefore, registered and entrusted to Sh. Binay Kumar, Inspr. of Police, CBI/ACB/Jammu. Supdt. 19.07 lacs. The above facts disclose the commission of offence punishable u/S. 120-B RPC & Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, 2006. A regular case is, therefore, registered and entrusted to Sh. Binay Kumar, Inspr. of Police, CBI/ACB/Jammu. Supdt. of police CBI/ACB/Jammu Confidential/Registered No./3/17(A)/98-JMU Dated 10.11.98 The CBI report, dated 10.11.1998 did not include petitioner in conspiracy allegedly hatched by the Officers of respondent Hotel/Corporation." 25. The material collected by the Investigating Officer, also does not say anything more than that the petitioner and his General Secretary went to Delhi, met Management of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar and an agreement was arrived at, in the meeting recorded in minutes dated 30.5.1996, and that on his return to Srinagar, he requested for implementation of the agreement. The report did not recommend petitioner's prosecution but award of a major penalty under rules. The CBI report on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not prove any misconduct against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the CBI Enquiry report does not suggest commission of any fraud or forgery by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the enquiry was not restricted to 12 appointments made, after Union leaders demanded filling of these posts under ST/OBC Category be to 32 appointments made in dereliction of rules and without quota. There is no allegation against petitioner as regards these appointments. 26. From the above discussion, it transpires that the conclusion drawn by the Single Member Enquiry Committee are not based on any evidence. The report, therefore, suffers from perversity and warrants quashment in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India read with Section 103 Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents in his arguments has focused attention on non-maintainability of the petition on the ground that petitioner having chosen not to avail alternate remedy available under rules, cannot maintain writ jurisdiction. It is stated that under Staff Regulation 78 (F) Hotel Corporation of India Limited Service Regulation, petitioner had an option to press into service Regulations 78 to question the order dated March 2, 2004 assailed in the present writ petition. It is insisted that in presence of such alternate remedy, petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of the Court. It is stated that under Staff Regulation 78 (F) Hotel Corporation of India Limited Service Regulation, petitioner had an option to press into service Regulations 78 to question the order dated March 2, 2004 assailed in the present writ petition. It is insisted that in presence of such alternate remedy, petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel in this regard seeks to draw support from law laid down in "(i) (2006) 6 SCC 325 : ( AIR 2006 SC 2739 ). (ii) (2009) 9 SCC 612. (iv) (2009) 9 SCC 252. (v) (2006) 5 SCC 255 : (AIR 2005 SC 2016). (vi) (2006) 5CC 469 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3622 )" 28. The argument is of no avail to the respondent. In the first place, the petition has been admitted to hearing as back as on 9th March, 2009, notwithstanding the plea that petitioner had not availed equally efficacious remedy, was taken up in the reply dated 3rd December, 2004. The objection taken to maintabililty of petition did not find favour with the court. Petition was admitted to hearing. The plea, raised to seek dismissal of the petition without going into merits, cannot be entertained more than a decade after the petition was filed. This apart issue involved in the petition is infringement of Fundamental Rights and in particular rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India. It is well settled that it may not always be open to decline exercise of writ jurisdiction, when infringement of Fundamental Rights is alleged. 29. Having regard to the findings returned on the grounds arising out of the pleadings as regards perversity of the order impugned and dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner failed to follow alternative remedy, it may not be necessary to look into the proportionality of the penalty awarded, and whether the order impugned is an outcome of mala fide nursed by Management of Hotel Corporation of India on account of petitioner espousing cause of the employees of the respondent Hotel as President, Centaur Lake View Hotel Srinagar. 30. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, writ petition is allowed and Order dated March 02, 2004 is quashed. Respondents are directed by Writ of Mandamus to allow the petitioner to join/assume his duty unless, petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation. 30. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, writ petition is allowed and Order dated March 02, 2004 is quashed. Respondents are directed by Writ of Mandamus to allow the petitioner to join/assume his duty unless, petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation. In the event, petitioner, has crossed age of superannuation, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents shall issue a formal retirement order and work out the benefits accruing to the petitioner in wake of setting aside of Order No. HCI/ADMN/DEL/54 dated 02.3.2004, thereafter pay him retiral benefits in accordance with the rules. However, in case, petitioner is yet to attain age of retirement, he shall be allowed to join/assume his duty in compliance of this Order. Service benefits from the date of petitioner's removal from service till he joins/assumes his duty shall be worked out in accordance with rules and released in favour of the petitioner. Let such exercise in both cases be completed within three months i.e. by or before 31st January, 2015.