JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing resolution dated 4.2.2011, which was served upon the petitioner vide office order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure-4) and also for quashing impugned order of suspension dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure-G). 2. The brief facts, as depicted in the writ application, is that the petitioner is the Founder Principal of Ramgarh Inter Women's College, which was established and running since 1988. By passage of time, respondent no. 1 issued order of affiliation of the college in question in the year 2008 vide notification dated 1.3.2008 and pursuant thereto a meeting was held wherein the petitioner was nominated as officio member being the Principal of the said College and the respondent no. 6 was elected as Secretary vide resolution dated 7.3.2008. Thereafter, respondent no. 7 was nominated as Secretary in place of respondent no. 6 by the Managing Committee vide resolution dated 27.10.2010. Aggrieved thereof, respondent no. 6 preferred W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010, in which, vide interim order dated 18.2.2011 a direction was issued to Jharkhand Academic Counsel to appoint/depute a person as Secretary to look after all the affairs of the Ramgarh Inter Women's College, Ramgarh until further orders. It has further been averred that in the meeting of Governing Body dated 4.2.2011, the financial power of the petitioner was seized which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated annexing therewith resolution dated 4.2.2011. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned respondents but it did not evoke any response. But to the utter surprise, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.2.2011, which is impugned in this case. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of suspension dated 21.2.2011 as also resolution dated 4.2.2011, which was served upon the petitioner vide office order dated 7.2.2011, the petitioner left with no other alternative; efficacious and speedy remedy has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension amounts to violation of order dated 18.2.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010. learned senior counsel further submitted that neither respondent no. 3 nor respondent no. 4. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension amounts to violation of order dated 18.2.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010. learned senior counsel further submitted that neither respondent no. 3 nor respondent no. 7 has any authority to pass impugned order of suspension against the petitioner which has been passed with a mala fide motive. It has further been submitted that the impugned order of suspension has been passed without initiation of any proceeding and without issuance of memo of charge, hence, the same cannot be held to be legally permissible because protracted order of suspension that too without issuance of charge-sheet or initiation of proceeding would not stand the test of reasonableness on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case, of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India 'through its Secretary & Anr. as reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 [ : 2015(2) JLJR (SC)85]. Moreover, the order of suspension has continued for more than five years, therefore, the presumption would arise that there is no material either for initiation of proceeding or for issuance of charge-sheet. Even otherwise also, the President of the College has got no power to suspend rather the Governing Body is competent to take disciplinary action, if any occasion arises. In the instant case, the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the president, without the decision of the Governing Body, therefore, on that score the impugned order of suspension is assailable. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that while the petitioner was continuing as In-charge Principal of the College, several acts of indiscipline and misconduct were reported and it was also found that the petitioner along with the Secretary-Arun Kumar Sinha had jointly caused several financial irregularities. In such circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.8.2010, on which, they replied, which on being found unsatisfactory she was put under suspension. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not qualified to be Principal of an Intermediate College as the petitioner does not have B.Ed. In such circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.8.2010, on which, they replied, which on being found unsatisfactory she was put under suspension. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not qualified to be Principal of an Intermediate College as the petitioner does not have B.Ed. qualification and 12 years teaching experience in Degree College, which is prerequisite qualification. It has further been submitted that after order of suspension, the petitioner did not handover the charges and retained with her the keys of Almirah, wherein all the documents including cash book etc. had been locked. On 4.2.2011, in the meeting of Managing Committee of the College, the financial power of the petitioner was seized as it was found that the petitioner along with Arun Kumar Sinha have misused the financial powers given to them and Managing Committee further resolved to conduct an audit so as to find out the irregularities committed by the petitioner and other previous Secretary of the College. It has further been submitted that the W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010 was disposed of vide order dated 3rd May, 2011 and Jharkhand Academic Council was directed to constitute a new Managing Committee and accordingly, new Managing Committee was constituted on 9.9.2011 and JAC was informed accordingly. It has further been submitted that before appointment of the petitioner as In-charge Principal, neither any advertisement was Issued, nor her educational certificates have been verified. It has further been submitted that Jharkhand Academic Council vide letter dated 31.7.2011 requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh to make an enquiry with respect to financial irregularities and the said inquiry was pending. The decision to put the petitioner under suspension was taken by the Managing Committee of the College in meeting held on 4.2.2011 and by the impugned letter, the said decision was only communicated to the petitioner. In pursuance to final order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010, the District Education Officer, Ramgarh was made Secretary of the College and he is functioning since then. Thereafter, new Managing Committee decided to appoint a regular Principal and accordingly advertisement has been issued in the daily newspaper on 19.3.2012 vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. On the basis of advertisement, several candidates applied for the post of Principal and after going through the selection process, Mrs. Thereafter, new Managing Committee decided to appoint a regular Principal and accordingly advertisement has been issued in the daily newspaper on 19.3.2012 vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. On the basis of advertisement, several candidates applied for the post of Principal and after going through the selection process, Mrs. Sakuntala Kumari was selected for the post of Principal and appointment letter was issued to her on 20.6.2012 and since then, she is discharging the duties of the Principal of the College. It has further been submitted that for the purpose of holding the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, several documents are required, so as to prove the serious charges of financial irregularities and other misconduct committed by the petitioner but the petitioner retained the keys of almirah as well as Principal Office of the College with her and is not allowing any person to take charge of the. said documents, hence, the respondents have already requested the District Administration for appointment of a Magistrate so as to enable the respondents to break open the almirah and take the various registers, documents and records of expenditures and other registers of accounts in their possession so that they take a decision at the earliest. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has been submitted that the respondent-JAC in compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2010, issued a letter dated 7.3.2011 whereby the District Education Officer, Ramgarh has been deputed to Secretary of Ramgarh Inter Mahila College, Ranchi as evident from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 7. An intervention application, being I.A. No. 7412 of 2016, has been filed by one Sri Bimal Kumar Budhia in the capacity of Secretary, Ramgarh Inter Women's College, Ramgarh Cant, wherein it has been averred that earlier the Governing Body of the College was constituted vide letter dated 25.7.2013 and when the tenure of the same came to an end, the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter dated 29.8.2016 has constituted the Governing Body of the Inter College with further request to the Principal of the College to nominate the donor member and teacher representative and make the same available at the earliest, as per Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application. In order to give effect to the letter dated 29.8.2016 of JAC, Ranchi, a meeting of the Governing Body was held on 7.9.2016 and the name of the intervenor was proposed which was finally approved by the Governing Body and one similarly Sri Purna Kant Kumar was elected teacher representative. In the said meeting, it was also decided that in the next meeting the election of the President, the Secretary as also educationists is also to be done. Subsequently, on 19.9.2016 meeting of the Governing Body was held and in the said meeting the educationist Sri Durga Ram was co-opted as educationist member and thereafter due deliberation was held and upon election the President and the Secretary of the Governing Body was elected as per the proceeding and resolution of the Governing Body dated 7.9.2016 and 19.9.2016 vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the Intervention Application. It has further been submitted that the resolution has been forwarded to the Jharkhand Academic Council for their confirmation. Thereafter, the newly constituted Governing Body of the College has taken charge of the Ramgarh Inter Women's College, Ranchi. It has further been submitted that the dispute relating to service matter of an educational institution managed and administered by private management located in the State of Jharkhand relating to grievance of teachers of aided, affiliated and private educational institution is to be looked into and adjudicated by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005. Under Section 15 of the JET Act, 2005, there is provision of appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. It has further been submitted that since the deponent is now the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Ramgarh Inter Women's College, Ramgarh and he is a necessary party to be added as intervenor in the array of respondents as respondent no. 10. 8. It has further been submitted that since the deponent is now the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Ramgarh Inter Women's College, Ramgarh and he is a necessary party to be added as intervenor in the array of respondents as respondent no. 10. 8. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length' and on perusal of the records, I am considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be apt to decide the maintainability of the writ application as during course of hearing it has been argued that remedy of appeal is available with the petitioner before Jharkhand Education Tribunal under the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 and in view of availability of alternative, efficacious remedy, it• has been argued that petitioner may agitate her grievances before Jharkhand Education Tribunal. (ii) Hence, at this stage, the moot question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the legality and propriety of the impugned order of suspension ought to be decided by this Court bypassing the remedy of appeal and facts and circumstances of the case entails this Court to usurp the power of appellate authority or this Court should act as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. (iii) Normally this Court would have relegated the matter to the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in view of the aforesaid provision but in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that from the date of filing of the writ application, more than six years have elapsed and no objection was raised on behalf of the respondents at the stage of admission, and even parties have exchanged their respective affidavits therefore, at this stage it would not be proper to relegate the matter to JET at this stage and this Court deems it expedient to delve into merit of the matter by rejecting the preliminary objection of the respondents regarding availability of alternative remedy. It is no more res integra that alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining a writ application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India nor there is any straightjacket formula for deciding the issue alternative remedy as it depends on facts of each and every case. It is no more res integra that alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining a writ application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India nor there is any straightjacket formula for deciding the issue alternative remedy as it depends on facts of each and every case. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. as reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has enunciated that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and a Writ Court can exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if there is alternative remedy. (iv) Now coming to merit of case, on perusal of impugned order of suspension, it would be manifestly clear that the order of suspension has been passed by the President on the basis of resolution passed by the Governing Body as has been disclosed in the counter-affidavit vide Annexure-C, but, no cogent and weighty grounds for putting the petitioner the petitioner on suspension has been assigned. Besides, from the date of passing of the impugned order of suspension more than six years have elapsed and admittedly no proceeding has been initiated nor charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Furthermore, it is an established fact suspension, specially preceding for formulation of charges, is transitory or temporary in nature and must be of short duration and protracted period of suspension has time and again been deprecated by Hon'ble Apex Court. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr. as reported in (2015)7 SCC 291 [: 2015(2) JLJR (SC)85]. 9. As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements; this Court is inclined to direct the respondents that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months from the date of passing of this order, if within this period memorandum charge or charge-sheet is not served on the petitioner and if a memo of charge is served within such period an order must be passed for the extension of period of suspension or any departmental proceeding has been initiated, which shall be subject to judicial review. It is made clear that on the date of expiry of period of three months, if no order is passed by the respondents order of suspension shall be deemed to be, revoked. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.