Pramath Patnaik, J. Since common issues have been involved in both the cases, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties both the cases are being disposed of by this order. 2. In W.P. (S) No.1137 of 2013, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ for quashing the order dated 28.03.2011 issued under the signature of Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and after quashing of the same pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 3. The short facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that earlier W.P.(S) No.6931/2011 was filed for quashing of departmental proceeding but during pendency of the writ petition, order of dismissal was passed and accordingly, writ petition was withdrawn on 08.02.2013 for filing of the fresh writ petition. 4. In the instant writ application the petitioner was a Class-III employee in Ranchi University and also the General Secretary of Ranchi University Staff Association, Ranchi. It is stated that petitioner made several complaints to the higher authorities against the corruption occurring in the University being the office bearer of the said Association. It has been averred in the writ application that in order to harass the petitioner and others Kotwali P.S. Case was lodged against the petitioner and others and departmental proceeding was also initiated as evident from Annexures-4 and 4/1 of the writ application. The petitioner received the office memo dated 07.01.2011 from post on 27.06.2011 as also admitted by the postal department that the letter was received on 27.06.2011 which was dispatched on 23.06.2011 by the University. Prior to receiving of the same, the case of the petitioner was ex-parte heard and he was dismissed from the services. Thereafter, on receiving of the said memo, the petitioner submitted his representations on 07.07.2011 and 23.08.2011 vide Annexure-7 and 7/1 series. It has further been submitted in the writ application that prior to dismissal from services no opportunity was made available to the petitioner and entire proceeding was done behind the back of the petitioner. 5. In W.P. (S) No.1123 of 2013, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ for quashing the order dated 11.05.2011 issued under the signature of Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and after quashing of the same pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 6. 5. In W.P. (S) No.1123 of 2013, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ for quashing the order dated 11.05.2011 issued under the signature of Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and after quashing of the same pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 6. The short facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that earlier W.P.(S) No.6915/2011 was filed for quashing of departmental proceeding but during pendency of the writ petition, order of dismissal was passed and accordingly, writ petition was withdrawn on 08.02.2013 for filing of the fresh writ petition. 7. In the instant writ application the petitioner was a Class-III employee in Ranchi University and also the General Secretary of Ranchi University Staff Association, Ranchi. It is stated that petitioner made several complaints to the higher authorities against the corruption occurring in the University being the office bearer of the said Association. It has been averred in the writ application that in order to harass the petitioner and others Kotwali P.S. Case was lodged against the petitioner and others and departmental proceeding was also initiated as evident from Annexures-6 and 6/1 of the writ application. The petitioner received the office memo dated 07.01.2011 from post on 28.06.2011. Prior to receiving of the same, the case of the petitioner was ex-parte heard and he was dismissed from the services. Thereafter, on receiving of the said memo, the petitioner submitted his representations on 07.07.2011 vide Annexure-9. It has further been submitted in the writ application that prior to dismissal from services no opportunity was made available to the petitioner and entire proceeding was done behind the back of the petitioner. 8. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh and Mr. Amrendra Pradhan learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-University. 9. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously submitted that proceeding has been conducted without serving copy of the enquiry report in gross violation of cardinal principles of natural justice so also infliction of statutory provision of the Jharkhand State University Act and the Rule framed there under. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-University. 9. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously submitted that proceeding has been conducted without serving copy of the enquiry report in gross violation of cardinal principles of natural justice so also infliction of statutory provision of the Jharkhand State University Act and the Rule framed there under. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire exercise of infliction of major punishment like of dismissal is an outcome of malice and actuated by mala fide, therefore, the action of the respondents are illegal, unjustified and colourable exercise of power being violative of Article 14, 16, 19(1) (g) and 311 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that so far as charges are concerned, as against Charge No.1 there is no eye witness, in Charge no.2 Management witnesses 5 and 6 support the case of the prosecution, but, Management witnesses 7 and 9 support the case of the petitioners. So far Charge No.3 is concerned i.e relating to non-joining in head-quarters, that cannot be construed as a grave charge. 11. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2010 informed the Registrar of the University with respect to the proceeding of the Class-III Employees Union indicating therein that on and from 13.04.2010 to 20.04.2010 the employees who are members of the Union would abstain from their official duty in respect to their demand made earlier as per Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit. It has further been submitted in the supplementary affidavit that the Registrar of the University, who is respondent no.2 was signatory to the letter dated 12.04.2010 whereby a sum of Rs.1 Crore 32 lakhs approximately has been embezzled. The respondent no.1 in spite of the involvement of the respondent no.2 in disbursement and embezzlement of the aforesaid amount, authorized the respondent no.2 to lodge an F.I.R and the same was done by the respondent no.2 on 01.06.2010, which was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No.364 of 2010 making the Finance Officer as one of the co-accused along with unknown persons as evident from Annexure-12. Prior to the alleged incident on 12.04.2010 forming basis of the F.I.R against the petitioners as well as the departmental proceeding and the impugned order of termination, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 03.04.2010 also lodged an F.I.R. against one Surya Bhushan Sahabadi, Assistant, Examination Department on similar charges of disturbing the official work and the said Surya Bhushan Sahabadi was also proceeded departmentally and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the respondent no.1 chose condoning the misconduct of the employees revoking his suspension with a warning and directing for payment of his full salary for the period of suspension as would be evident from Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the order dated 21.07.2015 passed in W.P. (PIL) No.5409 of 2012 pertaining to embezzlement of Rs.1 Crore 32 lakhs in Ranchi University. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners during course of argument has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.) and (1983) 2 SCC 442 (Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), wherein it has been held that the alternative remedy is not barred for entertaining the writ application. So far as doctrine of proportionality is concerned, learned for the petitioners has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1991) 3 SCC 213 (Ex-Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors),. Apart from the legal issues, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have raised the issues of financial bungling and the illegal appointment of the wife of conducting officers for which they became a victim of mala fide motive and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. 13. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the aforesaid writ applications are not maintainable as the petitioners have an efficacious and alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities as provided under Section 10 (19) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the aforesaid writ applications are not maintainable as the petitioners have an efficacious and alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities as provided under Section 10 (19) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that due to various acts of undisciplined behavior and misconducts committed by the petitioners and also due to tampering of official records, the petitioner was served with show cause notice on 27.01.2010 as per Annexures-A, B, C, D and E of the counter affidavit. The reply of the petitioner dated 03.02.2010 was not found to be satisfactory and in the meantime it was also found that since 10.04.2010 the petitioner had incited the employees of the Ranchi University to abstain from work and perform Dharna as a result of which the work of the University suffered and therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide office order dated 21.04.2010. During the period of his suspension his head office was fixed as the Head of the Department, Post Graduate Department of Political Science as per Annexure-F to the counter affidavit. The respondents framed charges against the petitioner and initiated departmental proceeding against him vide charge sheet dated 15.11.2010 as per Annexure- G and the petitioner was served with copy of the charge sheet which the petitioner did not receive. Thereafter, charge sheet was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 24.01.2011 which the petitioner did not receive. The petitioner did not receive the charge memo in person, the charge sheet was published in daily Newspaper “Ranchi Express” on 21.12.2010 as per Annexure-H. In spite of the Charge memo being published in local daily newspaper having wide circulation in the place of residence of the petitioner and the petitioner thereby having received knowledge of the charge memo, no reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the disciplinary authority left with no option appointed the inquiry officer and the presenting officer. The inquiry officer issued notice to the petitioner by registered post on 24.01.2011 directing him to present himself before the inquiry officer on 05.02.2011. However, the petitioner did not turn up on the appointed date, time and place. The registered letter sent to the petitioner returned undelivered as he refused to accept the letter. The inquiry officer issued notice to the petitioner by registered post on 24.01.2011 directing him to present himself before the inquiry officer on 05.02.2011. However, the petitioner did not turn up on the appointed date, time and place. The registered letter sent to the petitioner returned undelivered as he refused to accept the letter. The inquiry officer therefore, published the charge sheet in newspaper on 12.02.2011 directing the petitioner to appear before him failing which the matter would proceed for ex-parte hearing. The petitioner did not turn up and the order was passed holding ex-parte inquiry in day today basis. The presenting office examined 11 witnesses and also exhibited documents. The petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceeding. Upon conclusion of enquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report dated 28.02.2011 as per Annexure-I to the counter affidavit. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.03.2011 by registered post at the residential address of the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not receive the same and the undelivered registered cover containing the report of the postal peon that the petitioner has refused to accept the envelope was received at the University. Thus no reply to the 2nd notice and the inquiry proceeding was submitted by the petitioner. As no response was received on the inquiry report, the entire records relating to departmental proceedings against the petitioner was placed before the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi and the Vice Chancellor after examining the entire records and applying his independent mind vide order dated 26.03.2011 has been pleased to impose the penalty of dismissal from the University service upon the petitioner under Section 10(18) of the JSU Act, 2000 and Article 15 of the Statutes relating to general conditions of service of the Ranchi University vide Annexure-J to the counter affidavit. The order of the disciplinary authority has been given effect to from the issuance of an office order dated 28.03.2011. It has further been submitted that the order of dismissal was sent to the residential address of the petitioner by post. However, the petitioner declined to receive the order of dismissal and the undelivered postal cover containing order of dismissal has since returned to the University. It has further been submitted that the order of dismissal was sent to the residential address of the petitioner by post. However, the petitioner declined to receive the order of dismissal and the undelivered postal cover containing order of dismissal has since returned to the University. The University thereafter has published a notice in local daily ‘Prabhat Khabar’ regarding the dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the Ranchi University vide Annexure-L to the counter affidavit. Although, the petitioner was aware about the disciplinary action taken against him and he had been dismissed from services w.e.f. 28.03.2011, vide letter dated 07.07.2011 he represented before the respondent authority to withdraw the order of suspension and pay him the arrears of salary. Thereafter, the respondents University sent its reply dated 11.10.2011 enclosing therewith the entire records relating to disciplinary authority against the petitioner, however, the registered cover returned undelivered with the report dated 14.10.2011 refusing to accept the same vide Annexure-N to the counter affidavit. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-University on the other hand has assiduously submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have efficacious and alternative remedy for filing appeal before the Hon’ble Chancellor as provided under Section 10(19) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the appellate authority would decide all questions of facts and law. In this respect, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337 (Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors.), (Para 15-16) and (2011) 2 SCC 575 (Transport and Dock Workers Union and Ors. Vs. Mumabi Port Trust and Anr.) (para 14). 15. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that plea of malice is not applicable in absence of impletion of party. Thirdly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on perusal of the inquiry report, it is quite evident that Charge No.1 has been proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 have been partially proved and basing on the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment. 16. Thirdly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on perusal of the inquiry report, it is quite evident that Charge No.1 has been proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 have been partially proved and basing on the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment. 16. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:- (I) That in the case in hand, admittedly the impugned order of dismissal was passed without serving copy of the inquiry report which has resulted in violation of cardinal principles of natural justice causing gross prejudice to the petitioners. (II) On perusal of the findings of the charges, it appears that so far as Charge No.1 is concerned, there is no eye witness, as regards Charge no.2, the Management witnesses 5 and 6 have supported the case of the prosecution, but the Management witnesses 7 and 9 have supported the case of the petitioners and so far as Charge No.3 is concerned i.e relating to non-joining to head-quarters, that cannot be construed as a grave charge. Considering the charges, the punishment appears to be grossly disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of charges. (III) So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it appears that one another employee Surya Bhushan Sahabadi, Assistant, Examination Department against whom similar charges have been framed, but after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, respondent no.1 has condoned his misconduct by revoking his suspension with a warning and he has been paid full salary for the period of suspension as reflected in Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit. (IV) So far as parity in quantum of punishment among the delinquents is concerned, it would be profitable to refer to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , in particular paragraph 9, which is quoted herein below: “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” (V) In view of the stated factual and legal aspects as discussed hereinabove, the impugned orders of punishment dated 28.03.2011 and 11.05.2011 passed in both the writ petitions being unsustainable are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to start the proceeding from the stage of submission of supply of the inquiry report to the petitioners by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/communication of the copy of the order of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.