ORDER : B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J. The travails for the petitioner in his service with the Department of Forests has begun in the year 2015, and it has persisted with the Order dated 28.03.2024 in Application No.4597 of 2023 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, the Tribunal]. The petitioner's failure in his Application with the Tribunal affords him the cause to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Tribunal's order. 2. The petitioner has invoked the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [for short, the 1985 Act] to call in question the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 and the fourth respondent's notice dated 30.09.2023. The second respondent has directed further inquiry as contemplated under Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Service [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, the CCA Rules] and consequently the fourth respondent has issued a notice of hearing dated 30.09.2023. 3. The petitioner has reported to duty as the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Kaggalipura Range, Kaggalipura in January 2014, and on 08.06.2017, the petitioner is displaced with his posting to Madhugiri. The petitioner has called in question this order dated 08.06.2017 with the Tribunal in Application No. 3200/2017. The Tribunal has granted an interim order staying the order dated 08.06.2017. The petitioner is kept under suspension on 14.11.2018, and he continued under suspension until 08.04.2019 when this decision is revoked simultaneously with the decision to post him to the Research Range, Raichur. 4. The Tribunal has disposed of the petitioner's application in No. 3200/2017 in view of this Composite Order dated 08.04.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to call in question this Composite Order. The petitioner has filed his subsequent application in No. 3107/2019 with the Tribunal calling in question the Order dated 08.04.2019, and the Tribunal has disposed of this application by its Order dated 11.07.2019. The petitioner is served with Charge Memo dated 17.07.2019 [within a week] imputing that he, with no cause, had remained absent for duty between 08.04.2019 and 11.07.2019 [the period during which the petitioner’s application in No. 3107/2019 was pending]. The petitioner has responded to the second Show Cause Notice which is issued on completion of the enquiry, and the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 is after the petitioner's response to such second Show Cause Notice. 5. The petitioner has responded to the second Show Cause Notice which is issued on completion of the enquiry, and the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 is after the petitioner's response to such second Show Cause Notice. 5. These circumstances are undisputed, and whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's order is considered in the light of the reasons offered by the Tribunal and the rival submissions. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioner's grievance stems from the assertion that the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 is an order that directs re-enquiry which is impermissible in law but the second respondent has only permitted a further enquiry from a particular stage as contemplated under Rule 11A of the CCA Rules. 6. Sri C.M. Nagabhushan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner [the inquiry] is essentially premised in the imputation that he has not reported to duty in terms of the Composite Order dated 08.04.2019 during the pendency of the Application No.3107/2019 - the application filed by the petitioner calling in question the order dated 08.04.2019, but the merits of this imputation must be considered in the light of the Tribunal's opinion in the order dated 11.07.2019 which posted him to Reserve Range, Raichur and to keep him under suspension. 7. Sri C.M. Nagabhushan emphasizes that [a] the Tribunal in its order dated 11.07.2019 has opined that this posting vide the Order dated 08.04.2019 amounts to punishment, [b] that the State Government has not called in question Tribunal’s order dated 11.07.2019 and [c] that if this decision is not called in question, there will be no basis for the imputation that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct in not reporting to duty in terms of that order. The learned counsel also canvasses that: [i] the imputation could be justified if the petitioner was issued with a relieving letter between 08.04.2019 and 17.07.2019 but the petitioner is not issued with this Letter, and [ii] the order dated 08.04.2019 was issued during the pendency of the earlier application in No.3200 of 2017, which is disposed of reserving liberty to call in question the order dated 08.04.2019. 8. 8. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner who has participated in the departmental proceedings cannot at this stage raise a grievance with the charge memo on the grounds now presented for consideration and that the petition must be disposed of examining the petitioner's grievance with the second respondent's order dated 21.03.2019 and that, as observed by the Tribunal, this order is within the expanse of jurisdiction conferred under Rule 11A of the CCA Rules. The learned Additional Government Advocate canvasses that if this Court, in disposing of this petition, truncates the very proceedings because such imputations could not have been made, the petitioner would be admitted to a relief not even pleaded. 9. The question for consideration is: whether this Court must refuse to exercise its plenary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even when it is indisputable, in the facts of a case, that the inquiry would only result in a futile exercise. The argument against exercise of such jurisdiction in the present case is that pleadings are not properly made and that appropriate relief is not asked at the very beginning. 10. This Court observes that this Court's plenary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be circumscribed by the deficiency, even if any, in the pleadings or a petitioner not seeking appropriate relief when the undisputed circumstances otherwise justify such exercise of jurisdiction to do ‘complete justice’. This Court’s jurisdiction to mould relief, when it must be, will be redoubtable, and this Court may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , [1995] 6 SCC 749 though it is in the context of the intervention when the punishment/ penalty is shockingly disproportionate. 11. The factual circumstances peculiar to this case are examined in the light of this view to decide on whether this Court must interfere with the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 and bring about a closure of the proceedings. The petitioner was before the Tribunal against his transfer from Kaggalipura Range, Kaggalipura to Madhugiri in filing his application No. 3200/2007, and he had the benefit of the interim order. It is during the currency of this interim order that a composite decision is taken [on 08.04.2019] to revoke the suspension and post the petitioner to Research Range, Raichur. The petitioner was before the Tribunal against his transfer from Kaggalipura Range, Kaggalipura to Madhugiri in filing his application No. 3200/2007, and he had the benefit of the interim order. It is during the currency of this interim order that a composite decision is taken [on 08.04.2019] to revoke the suspension and post the petitioner to Research Range, Raichur. The Tribunal, with this decision, has disposed of the petitioner's Application No.3200 of 2017 on reserving liberty to the petitioner to call in question the decision to transfer him to Raichur. 12. The petitioner has availed such liberty in filing his Application No. 3107/2019. The Tribunal was thus seized of the question, whether the petitioner could be posted to Raichur Range from Bangalore Circle notwithstanding the impact that it could have on his seniority. The Tribunal, in examining such a question, has opined that posting the petitioner from Bangalore Circle to Raichur tantamount to punishment impeding the petitioner's right to a certain seniority. The Tribunal's finding in its order dated 11.07.2019 reads as under: " 5. Admittedly, applicant belongs to Bangalore Range and seniority is also maintained in that circle. Further, it is not the case of abolition of the posts of DRFOS and thereby posting the applicant to some other Range. In the instant case, applicant was suspended on account of alleged misconduct and subsequently pending departmental enquiry, order of suspension was revoked and he was entitled to be posted in the same Circle but he has been posted to some other Circle. Posting of the applicant from one Circle to another Circle is amounting to punishment and the applicant's service condition with regard to seniority is also infringed. Hence, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to set-aside the impugned order In so far as it relates to posting of the applicant to Research Range, Raichur." 13. The substratum of the imputation against the petitioner in the Charge Memo is that he did not report to duty at Raichur consequent to this Composite Order dated 08.04.2019 until the Tribunal’s decision on 11.07.2019. This substratum is impaired in law with the Tribunal finding that such order amounts to a punishment impeding the petitioner's right to a particular seniority. The State Government, admittedly, has not called in question this order. This substratum is impaired in law with the Tribunal finding that such order amounts to a punishment impeding the petitioner's right to a particular seniority. The State Government, admittedly, has not called in question this order. This Court is of the considered view that if the order dated 08.04.2019 is thus rendered nugatory, the Charge Memo built on such order cannot result in a sustainable finding on misconduct or any punishment. Therefore, this Court, in the peculiarities of the case, finds that there is imminent reason to intervene setting aside the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 opining that there must be closure of the proceedings begun with the Charge Memo dated 17.07.2019. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [i] The petition is allowed. [ii] The second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 is quashed declaring that there cannot be any further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo dated 17.07.2019.