Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

(i) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no. 2609(g) dated 20.03.2018 issued by the State Government under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Building Construction Department, Patna by which the petitioner has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (Annexure 13).

(ii) To issue a writ/order/ direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing report dated 19.09.2014 by which the Presiding Officer on basis of the inquiry report has held the charges leveled against the petitioner to be true.

(iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the service of the petitioner immediately on the post of Superintending Engineer-cum-Execution Engineer, Building Circle, Purnea with continuity in service and all consequential benefits.

(iv) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present writ petition, the original order has been challenged which has been passed by the Government and there is provision of Statutory Appeal available in the form of the review, which has been mentioned in Section 24(2) Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the “CCA Rules of 2005”) but in the present case, there is gross violation of the Rule of Law as well as violation of Principles of Natural Justice and therefore, direct entertainment of the writ petition is permissible within the preview of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In support of his argument, learned Senior counsel relied on a judgment rendered in case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 whose paragraphs 4, 5, 8 are relevant in which it has been held that in exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high Courts holding writ petitions as “not maintainable” merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction but the principles for entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 is basically plenary in nature and any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Article 226 of the constitution of India does not impose any limitation or restrain on the exercise of power to issue writs.

5. He relied one another Judgments rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal reported in 2014 (1) SCC 603 whose paragraph 10, 11, 12, and 15 are relevant in which it has been held that wherever there is violation of principle of natural justice and not following the Rule of Law, then writ petition may be directly entertained.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on another judgement of Ram And Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1985 (3) SCC 267 and Lily Thomas and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224. It addition to that he relied on one more judgment decided by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Harihar Prasad and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 892 and submits that availability of alternative remedy is not absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition especially when matter is pending for six year before this Court, and particularly, when no objection has been raised in the counter affidavit by the respondents. He further submits on merit that both the points available to the petitioner that Rule of Law has not been followed in imposing the punis