JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. The petitioner who was serving at the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this Court assailing the order of punishment imposed by the respondents, withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of Bangalore Mega City Block Range communicated to the General Manager of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited on 11.11.2008 that by a report submitted by the vigilance squad it has come to light that one M. Pillappa, Assistant Executive Engineer who was working at 6th North Subdivision BESCOM, Bangalore, has committed certain lapses by not noticing the slow meter reading of a particular installation and as a consequence, the Corporation has suffered financial loss to an extent of Rs.6,00,878/- (Rupees Six lakhs eight hundred and seventy eight only). The said M. Pillappa had retired as on 30.4.2007. 3. The second charge was that M/s. Sheeba Polysacks Private Limited, Bangalore has been provided with 2 meters in the same hall, which is against the norms of supply regulation. Though the Chief Engineer sought action to be initiated against the said M.Pillappa, who was the Assistant Executive Engineer, at the relevant point of time, show-cause notice and charge sheet were issued against the petitioner, along with M. Pillappa. 4. Learned counsel submits that the very same charge which was framed against M.Pillappa was also framed against petitioner. The inquiry was conducted on the basis that the petitioner succeeded M.Pillappa as the Assistant Executive Engineer and therefore he was also guilty of the charges having failed to notice the slow meter reading, after the petitioner took charge as the Assistant Executive Engineer. The inquiry report dated 12.03.2010 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer wherein it has been concluded as follows:- "While the second part of the charge against the delinquents has been substantiated, I am of the view that the delinquent-I is primarily accountable for the consequences, since the slow reading of the meter occurred during his tenure and continued during the tenure of delinquent-2, whose lapse though accountable should be viewed with lesser severity. Even in the case of delinquent-I the accountability has be shared along with the other employees who were associated with the maintenance of related records with responsibility of keeping the sub-divisional officer informed of the slow reading of the meter in good time. Even in the case of delinquent-I the accountability has be shared along with the other employees who were associated with the maintenance of related records with responsibility of keeping the sub-divisional officer informed of the slow reading of the meter in good time. In my view disciplinary action in such a case should more appropriately be taken in a common proceeding so as to afford reasonable opportunity for all involved in the process to get to know the evidence and to defend themselves. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, I hold that the charge against each of the delinquents is partly proved." 5. On 24.5.2010, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has caused reply on the very same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the tenable reply given by the petitioner, the Director, (Administration and Human Resources) proceeded to pass the impugned order imposing the punishment against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that even as on the day when the second show cause notice was issued, the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer. It was therefore, contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that as per the regulations, the Disciplinary Authority for Executive Engineer is the Managing Director and not the Director. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Director who is not the Disciplinary Authority could not have passed an order of punishment. 7. Secondly, it was submitted the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer clearly held M.Pillappa guilty of the charges and specifically recommended that the lapses on the part of petitioner, though accountable should be viewed with lesser severity. The learned counsel submits contrary to the conclusion and recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the charges levelled against M.Pillappa were dropped, while the punishment is sought to be imposed against the petitioner. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.Bhaskar vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, (2013) 5 KarLJ 433 : 2014) 1 AIR Kant R 12. Reliance is placed on this decision to canvas the contention that the respondent authorities are required to react within a reasonable time after a reply is caused by a delinquent officer to the second show cause notice. Reliance is placed on this decision to canvas the contention that the respondent authorities are required to react within a reasonable time after a reply is caused by a delinquent officer to the second show cause notice. In case of T.Bhaskar, there was a delay of about 3½ years between the second show cause notice and the order of punishment, while in the instant case, delay is of about 5 ½ years. 9. In the case of T. Bhaskar (supra), this Court proceeded to hold that there is inherent defect in the order. The delay has not been explained while the order of punishment is passed. It was also held that the impugned order of punishment is also defective for the reason that while discussing each charge, no evidence or material which was placed on record has been discussed. The order of punishment was therefore held to be a cryptic order without any reason. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to justify the impugned order stating that since the petitioner assumed charge after M.Pillappa was transferred, it was the duty of the petitioner to inspect the meter and even otherwise, as has been stated in the report that the petitioner having observed that the meter is going slow, the petitioner has only written to the Maintenance Department asking them to rectify the meter. It is therefore submitted that the guilt of the petitioner has been admitted and proved in the enquiry. 12. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ papers. 13. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents regarding alternative efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner does not impress this Court. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action and impose punishment against the Executive Engineer is the Managing Director and not the Director of the Corporation. Since it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inherent defect in the impugned order that as the competent authority has not passed the impugned orders, on that ground alone, this petition has to be entertained and allowed. 14. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Since it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inherent defect in the impugned order that as the competent authority has not passed the impugned orders, on that ground alone, this petition has to be entertained and allowed. 14. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. The High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Supreme Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 15. In the light of the above, the submissions regarding alternative remedy is rejected. Moreover, as seen from the records, the person against whom the Inquiry Officer held that the charges are proved and recommends punishment that person has been left scot-free while inspite of the recommendation of the enquiry officer that a lenient view is required to be taken against the petitioner, the respondent have proceeded to impose punishment. 16. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in case of T.Bhaskar (supra). 17. The authorities are indeed required to proceed after the reply is caused by the delinquent officer, within a reasonable time. It is another matter that in the present case, the petitioner has also retired since 31.8.2018. The benefit that what given to the said M.Pillappa is also required to be given to the petitioner. 18. In the light of the above, the petition succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. No orders as to costs. It is another matter that in the present case, the petitioner has also retired since 31.8.2018. The benefit that what given to the said M.Pillappa is also required to be given to the petitioner. 18. In the light of the above, the petition succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. No orders as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of.