JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant Writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: a) Quashing of Office Order No. NIT JSR/ESS/CD/2019-20/-325 dated 28.05.2019, whereby the petitioner’s gratuity and commutation of pension have been withheld citing pending departmental proceedings. b) Direction upon the respondents to release the petitioner’s full gratuity and commuted pension along with statutory interest. c) Quashing of the departmental proceedings initiated vide Memo No. NIT JSR/ESS/CD/2018-19/-615 dated 25.04.2019, being initiated after 14 years and continued beyond superannuation without legal sanction. d) Quashing of the decision recorded in the 38th Special Meeting of the Board of Governors imposing major penalty without issuing a note of disagreement or affording opportunity of reply. During the pendency of the instant writ application, Petitioner filed I.A no. 2554/21 for the additional reliefs which was allowed by this Court by order dated 04.01.2023 where in petitioner prays for following reliefs:- e) Quashing of the resolution of the 43rd Board Meeting dated 10.09.2020, whereby 10% gratuity of the petitioner was withheld as penalty. f) Quashing of Office Order No. NITJSR/ESS/CD/2020-21/1188 dated 28.01.2021 reducing gratuity to Rs. 18 lakhs. g) Quashing of Office Order No. NITJSR/ESS/CD/2020-21/1340 dated 04.02.2021, whereby Rs. 1,44,697/- has been recovered from gratuity without show cause. h) Direction upon the respondents to pay the entire withheld amount along with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (previously known as R.I.T., Jamshedpur) as a Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor and subsequently was promoted to the post of Professor. The Petitioner was made Chairman of Building Advisory Committee. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by the National Institute of Technology for appointment of Architect-cum Consultant for 10 nos. of Civil and Electrical works. Out of 12 bidders, the Tender Committee found L-1 to L-5 and L-10 & L- 11 ineligible, and L-12’s bid was blank. After negotiations with the shortlisted L-6 to L-9 bidders, the work was finally awarded to L-9, with the decision duly approved by the Board of Governors. During 2003-04, NIT invited tenders for execution of 10 civil and electrical works, receiving 4 bids. M/s Adison Construction emerged as L-1, and M/s JUSCO, Jamshedpur as L-2. After negotiations with the shortlisted L-6 to L-9 bidders, the work was finally awarded to L-9, with the decision duly approved by the Board of Governors. During 2003-04, NIT invited tenders for execution of 10 civil and electrical works, receiving 4 bids. M/s Adison Construction emerged as L-1, and M/s JUSCO, Jamshedpur as L-2. However, the Tender Committee found that M/s Adison’s bid was conditional, as it linked the rates to cement prices at Rs.135/- per bag with provisions for variation. Considering this unacceptable, the Committee rejected the L-1 bid, invited the L-2 bidder for negotiation, and finalized the work with them. This decision was duly approved by the Board of Governors. 3. Subsequently, on some complaints, CBI instituted an FIR in the year 2006, and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against petitioner and others in RC4(A)/2006(R). Petitioner was due to superannuate on 30.06.2019. In the fag end of his service career, the Respondents issued a Memorandum of Charge issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that his primary role was teaching and research, but he also served as Chairman of the Building Advisory Committee and performed his duties with integrity. The Board of Governors did not accept the Petitioner’s reply and appointed an enquiry committee led by Prof. Samaddar. The committee, however, concluded that while the Petitioner, as Chairman of the BAC, could have shown more diligence in examining the documents; however, there was no finding of lack of integrity or devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964/65. The enquiry report was placed before the Board of Governors, but instead of accepting or rejecting the findings, the Board directed the Enquiry Officer to re-submit the report—an action contrary to service jurisprudence. Upon reconsideration, the enquiry committee again submitted a report, reaffirming that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. 4. Petitioner superannuated and received appreciation letter from Head of Department. After the re-submitted enquiry report was placed before the Board of Governors in its 38th Special Meeting on 31st May 2019, the Board noted that the Prof. Samaddar Committee report did not contradict most findings of the CBI report. They further observed that Prof. A.K. Khan, as Chairman of the Building Advisory Committee, failed to highlight issues related to CVC guidelines and CPWD norms. Samaddar Committee report did not contradict most findings of the CBI report. They further observed that Prof. A.K. Khan, as Chairman of the Building Advisory Committee, failed to highlight issues related to CVC guidelines and CPWD norms. Consequently, the Board decided to refer his case to the CVC for second-stage advice, as he was due to retire on 30.04.2019. After taking the said decision, the Board of Governors, as a mere formality, issued a letter on 30.07.2019 directing the Petitioner to submit his written representation to the Disciplinary Authority by 13th August 2019. The Petitioner, in his reply dated 10th August 2019, stated that the proceedings were initiated after undue delay over a 2004 incident, despite two enquiry reports exonerating him. He contended that the Board, without recording any disagreement or reasons, pre-decided on a major penalty and issued a second show cause notice. He further argued that post-retirement, the proceedings cannot continue without legal sanction. 5. After his retirement, the Petitioner applied for his retiral benefits, including pension, leave encashment, GPF, gratuity, and commutation of pension. While other dues were paid, the Respondents, by order dated 28.05.2019, withheld his gratuity and pension commutation. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 12.03.2021, stating that in the 43rd Board of Governors meeting on 10.09.2020, NIT Jamshedpur resolved to impose a major penalty by withholding 10% of the petitioner’s gratuity. The Respondents further stated that, as per the decision, 10% of the gratuity was withheld, reducing the payable amount to Rs. 18 lakhs, as reflected in Office Order No. NITJSR/ESS/CD/2020-21/1188 dated 28.01.2021. Order issued recovering Rs.1,44,697/- from gratuity. Hence, this writ application. 7. It transpires from the pleadings that the Memorandum of Charge was issued upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner on receipt of the same, submitted a detailed reply explaining that he, a Lecturer and Chairman of the Building Advisory Committee, clarified that the Tender Committee rejected L-1 to L-5 bidders due to lack of relevant experience and awarded the work to L-9 after proper negotiations and Board’s approval. In the second charge, the Petitioner explained that L-1 bidder M/s Adision Construction’s offer was conditional and violated CPWD/CVC norms due to its base cement price clause. Consequently, L-2 bidder M/s JUSCO was called for negotiation and recommended for award of work, which was also duly approved by the Board. 8. In the second charge, the Petitioner explained that L-1 bidder M/s Adision Construction’s offer was conditional and violated CPWD/CVC norms due to its base cement price clause. Consequently, L-2 bidder M/s JUSCO was called for negotiation and recommended for award of work, which was also duly approved by the Board. 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid reply the Board of Governors appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry with respect to the said charges. The enquiry committee in the concluding portion of the enquiry report observed that dissatisfied with the reply, the Board of Governors initiated an enquiry while Prof. A.K. Khan, as Chairman of BAC, could have taken little more initiative for examining the papers, although the responsibilities were entrusted to the Consultant, but this does not refer to any lack of devotion and integrity i.e. his act not covering Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964/65. 9. The enquiry report was placed before the Board of Governors, but instead of accepting or rejecting it, the Board without assigning any reason, whatsoever, directed the Enquiry Officer to resubmit a fresh report; a procedure not recognized in service jurisprudence. On reconsideration, the Enquiry Committee again reported that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. 10. Therefore, from the aforementioned facts it is well established that firstly, the Board without assigning any note on disagreement or assigning any reason directed to conduct a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner and Secondly, even after fresh inquiry was conducted and the report was resubmitted, no charges were proved against the present Petitioner. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd & Anr. , [ (2006) 9 SCC 440 ] Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below 10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed. 11. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed. 11. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [ (1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783] a Bench of this Court considered Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The Regulation itself did not provide for the giving of any notice before the disciplinary authority differed with the view of the enquiry officer. This Court held: (SCC p. 97, para 19) “The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The facts further reveal that the Petitioner was due to retire on 30.04.2019, but the Respondents continued with the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner, even after his superannuation, as the Board of Governors just by way of empty formality, caused issuance of a letter dated 30.07.2019 directing the Petitioner to submit his written representation to the Disciplinary Authority on or before 13th August, 2019, to which the Petitioner duly responded. 12. It is a well settled principle that no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. 12. It is a well settled principle that no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. A rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceeding despite the officers reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule, and in absence of any rule relied upon by the Respondent, the continuation of disciplinary proceeding against the present Petitioner is bad in law. For this issue reliance has been taken from the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor , [ (2008) 5 SCC 257 ] .Relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: 29. In terms of the 1976 Regulations drawing up of a charge-sheet by the disciplinary authority is the first step for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. Unless and until, therefore, a charge-sheet is drawn up, a disciplinary proceeding for the purpose of the 1976 Regulations cannot be initiated. Drawing up of a charge-sheet, therefore, is the condition precedent for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. We have noticed in para 15 of our judgment that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. A rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceeding despite the officers reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule. A fortiori it must be a rule applicable to disciplinary proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is further imperative to mention herein that since the inception the Respondents had tried to justify their act by stating that a criminal case was instituted by CBI being R.C. Case No.04(A)/2006(R) in relation to the tender awarded to M/s. JUSCO which was previously a division of M/s. Tata Motors Limited. The entire prosecution was challenged by the Petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 03 of 2022 and this Court by a judgment dated 19.07.2022 has allowed the said applications and quashed the entire criminal proceedings and also set aside the order rejecting the discharge of the accused persons. 14. The entire prosecution was challenged by the Petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 03 of 2022 and this Court by a judgment dated 19.07.2022 has allowed the said applications and quashed the entire criminal proceedings and also set aside the order rejecting the discharge of the accused persons. 14. After the Petitioner’s retirement, the Respondent authorities have passed impugned order without any cogent reason and have imposed a punishment of reduction of gratuity/withholding of 10% gratuity as major penalty, pursuant to the said decision, 10% of the gratuity has been withheld and the payable amount of gratuity has been reduced to Rs.18.00 Lakhs, and an amount of Rs. 1,44,697/- has also been recovered from gratuity of the Petitioner. 15. The Respondents have also argued on the point that as the Petitioner has preferred a review under Section 9 of the NIT Amendment Act, 2012, against the order passed by the Board of Governors, NIT Jamshedpur by which the major penalty was imposed upon him, therefore under such circumstances when the Petitioner has availed an alternative remedy, the writ is not maintainable. (Refer 2 nd Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents.) 16. The aforementioned contention on behalf of the Respondents is not of much substance, as the said Review/ Representation has not yet been disposed of even after a lapse of more than one and half years. 17. Even otherwise, there is no bar on maintainability of writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution even if there exists alternative remedy. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 18. Furthermore, after the entire criminal prosecution lodged against the Petitioner was quashed by this Court in CR.M.P. No. 03/2022, the matter was placed before the Board of Governors, for reconsideration. On this pretext on several dates (i.e. on 25.04.2023, 13.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 06.09.2023) this instant matter was adjourned on the request made by the Counsel for the Respondents. 19. The Respondents advised the Petitioner to make a representation seeking review of the order, and impishly took the said representation. The impugned order passed by the Board of Governors is in violation of principles of natural justice, which directly violates the Petitioner’s fundamental right conferred under Part III of the Constitution of India, therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and under such circumstances, Respondent cannot take the plea of availability of alternative remedy as the instant writ application preferred by the Petitioner is maintainable. 20. Having regards to the aforementioned facts and discussions, the impugned orders passed by the Respondents is liable to be, and is, hereby quashed and set aside and accordingly the Respondents are directed to pay the entire withheld amount of gratuity along with statutory interest and also allow commutation of pension and further release the commuted pension of the petitioner along with interest. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 21. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated herein above.