ORDER : 1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard. 2. In this case, the High Court felt that the writ petition was of such moment that it had to be heard by a Full Bench at the stage of I admission. There has been a difference of opinion between the Judges constituting the Full Bench on the questions involved. Undoubtedly, the writ petition raised questions which deserved a hearing on merits and the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court dismissing I the writ petition summarily and direct the High Court to restore it to its file and admit the same. The High Court shall hear and decide the writ petition after notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible. 3. We direct that Shri P.P. Caprihan, IAS, Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana who has been appointed as Actg. Vice-Chancellor shall during the pendency of the writ petition, continue to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor and shall discharge all the powers, functions and duties of the Vice-Chancellor under the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the University. We also direct that during the pendency of the writ petition, there shall be no stay of the impugned order of suspension. 4. We further direct that the inquiry against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall both continue. Shri Caprihan shall be the Enquiry Officer in both the inquiries. 5. As to the inspection of the records kept in the custody of the District Judge, Rohtak, the parties shall be at liberty to move the High Court for necessary directions for inspection of the records and for being supplied with copies of the documents on payment of the usual charges. 6. Shri Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent No. I draws our attention to the fact that despite repeated notices, the petitioner has not till date filed his reply to the show cause notice The learned counsel, however, states that the Chancellor has no objection to the petitioner continuing in occupation of his official residence, making use of the staff car, telephone etc. and enjoying his other privileges including his salary and allowances, during the pendency of the inquiry against him. 7. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall file his reply to the show canse notice within four weeks from today. and enjoying his other privileges including his salary and allowances, during the pendency of the inquiry against him. 7. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall file his reply to the show canse notice within four weeks from today. 8. Issue notice to respondent No. 3, Hardwari Lal to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court for the allegations that he has made against Mr. Justice D.S. Towatia, a Judge constituting the Full Bench in the written submissions filed by him in this Court. 9. Let a notice be issued to the learned Attorney-General with request to assist the Court in the proceedings. 10. The parties shall be at liberty to participate in the proceedings if so advised. 11. Let a contempt matter be listed after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry convenient to the learned Attorney-General in consultation with him. 12. The contemnor shall remain present at the next date of hearing.