JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. 1. Principal issue that arises for consideration in this petition directed against order of removal passed by the Board of Management of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. Against petitioner an Economic Botanist (Legumes), department of Genetics and plant .Breeding, is if the order is vitiated having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and against directions of the Chancellor in reference directed against earlier order of minor punishment. 2. Important also is the issue if a delinquent challenges order of punishment and the higher authority after quashing punishment directs disciplinary authority to pass fresh order could the disciplinary authority impose harsher and severer punishment on same material than what was imposed earlier. In other words can a person be made worse than what he was if he would not have challenged the order of punishment. Ancillary to these is the issue if a person who did not possess the prescribed qualifications on the date when he made application for a post but acquired it subsequently at time of interview or appointment then does his appointment stand vitiated. Before adverting to any of these issues which apart from being legal have to be adjudicated upon on the facts it appears necessary to lay bare the factual matrix. In August, 1973 an advertisement was issued by Public Service Commission inviting applications till 31st December, 1973 for one post of Geneticist, the essential qualification for which were (i) First or second class with at least 50% marks M. Sc. (Ag) in Agricultural Botany or Genetics and plant Breeding OR M. Sc. in Botany with a special paper in Genetics and plant Breeding or thesis in lieu thereof or have undergone training in Genetics and plant breeding after obtaining M. Sc. (Botany) degree, (ii) Ph. D in genetics and plant breeding OR exceptionally distinguished record of research in the field and (iii) five years experience of research in plant breeding Preferential, Experience of teaching and/or guiding research in Genetics and plant Breeding in Post graduate classes. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitioner applied for the post disclosing his qualifications as under :- Examination Year University Division Percentage of passed marks Ph. D. 1973 Meerut _ M. Phill. 1971 do I 74.4% M. Sc. (Ag) 1967 Agra I 62.1% B. Sc. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitioner applied for the post disclosing his qualifications as under :- Examination Year University Division Percentage of passed marks Ph. D. 1973 Meerut _ M. Phill. 1971 do I 74.4% M. Sc. (Ag) 1967 Agra I 62.1% B. Sc. (Ag) 1965 do I 68.8% It also contains details about research experience, teaching experience, professional recognition and honours, publications, that is, thesis and dissertation, research publications, popular articles etc. He was called for interview by a letter dated 30th August, 1974 asking him to appear on 11th September, 1974 alongwith Ph. D. degree and original application duly forwarded by Head of Department. Petitioner produced these certificates including the Ph. D. Degree awarded to him in 1974. Viva voce examination for Ph. D. was held on 1st December, 1973 as is clear from the report of viva voce examiners which reads as under : " Viva voce examination of Mr. J. S. Sindhu was conducted on his Ph. D. thesis entitled " Genetics of male sterility, fertility restoration and heerosis breeding in wheat ", jointly by us on 1-12-1973, at Cummings Laboratory, IARI, New Delhi. Performance of the candidate was satisfactory. Mr. Sindhu was able to defend his work competently. We feel, the contributions made by Mr. Sindhu are valuable both from fundamental and applied point of views. " Out of persons who appeared for interview, including one Dr. Udal Singh, who was in class II services and working on Class I on ad hoc basis in U.P. Institute of Agriculture Science, the petitioner was selected by the Commission and appointed by the State Government on 27th February, 1975 in U.P. Agricultural Service class I. Immediately after his appointment Dr. Udal Singh filed writ petition no. 6251 of 1975 challenging the appointment of petitioner in which the public service commission filed a counter-affidavit, paragraph 5 of which is extracted below : Para 5 : That the assertions contained in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, are not admitted. In reply it is stated that the respondent no. 4 Sri Jagbir Singh Sindhu had in brief claimed to possess the following qualifications and experience : Qualifications : (1) M. Sc. (Ag) in Ag. Botany, 1st Div in the year 1967. (2) M. Phill. In Agr. Botany, 1st Div. in the year 1971. (3) Ph. D. in Agr. Botany, in the year 1973-74. 4 Sri Jagbir Singh Sindhu had in brief claimed to possess the following qualifications and experience : Qualifications : (1) M. Sc. (Ag) in Ag. Botany, 1st Div in the year 1967. (2) M. Phill. In Agr. Botany, 1st Div. in the year 1971. (3) Ph. D. in Agr. Botany, in the year 1973-74. Experience : December 1967 to November 1968. Res. Assistant with the Rockfeller Foundation, New Delhi Worked on breeding for disease resistence in wheat. November 1968 to December 1970 : Lecturer in plant breeding at the Punjab Agr. University (Palampur Campus) worked on wheat and Soyabean breeding. 1970 to June 1973. Research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Meerut University. June 1973 to December 31, 1973. Post Doctoral research fellow, Benaras Hindu University. A copy of the detailed Bio-data furnished by Dr. J. S. Sindhu is enclosed as Annexure I. These aforesaid qualifications satisfied the essential requirements in the advertisement and Dr. Sindhu was found most suitable for selection. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18th March 1980. 3. In the year in which petitioner was appointed that is, 1975 Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology was established at Kanpur to which assets of U.P. Institute of Agricultural Science were transferred. In respect of transfer of employee the government issued a separate order prescribing the procedure for opting the University services and for resigning from the State service. In pursuance of the procedure prescribed in the Government order petitioner resigned the government service, opted for University service, and he was appointed on the post of Economic Botanist (Legumes) on which he was confirmed by the University in January 1979. Government orders dated 14th May 1980 and 6th June, 1980 on which reliance has been placed in counter affidavit did not in any manner detract the status of petitioner as they were only issued for regularising the absorption of the employees of Agricultural Institute who had opted for the University services. In 1980 petitioner appears to have been awarded professional Development Award by the International Development Research Certificate to pursue advance research work in Canada for which the University gave him a no objection certificate. In 1980 petitioner appears to have been awarded professional Development Award by the International Development Research Certificate to pursue advance research work in Canada for which the University gave him a no objection certificate. Since the petitioner was to proceed in November, 1981, it is stated that he met the Vice Chancellor who told him that since the meeting of the Board of Management could not be convened before that date the petitioner should postpone the original date of departure and fix any other date after 15th November 1981. Consequently, petitioner fixed his departure on 20th November. But the meeting of the Board of Management did not take place and it is stated that with the oral permission of the Vice Chancellor petitioner proceeded for Canada on 20th November, 1981. In counter affidavit filed by the office Superintendent of the University, the claim of petitioner of oral permission by the Vice Chancellor has been denied, on perusal of record. But no letter of the Vice Chancellor refuting the claim of petitioner has been filed. Nor it has been stated that the deponent of the counter affidavit met the Vice Chancellor who informed him that the petitioner did not have any talk in this connection. In August, 1982 a show cause notice was issued to petitioner asking him to explain as to why action may not be taken against him as he was neither Ph. D. nor had five years experience of research work but by mis-representation and misleading the Public Service Commission he secured his appointment. He was also asked to explain as to how did he leave for Canada without prior sanction of leave. Certain irregularites about handing over cash at the time of handing over charge and failure to adjust advances were also required to be explained. On 7th September 1982 the petitioner sent his reply from Canada refuting each of irregularities pointed out in the show cause notice and informing the authorities that proceedings be postponed till mid November as he was requesting the International Development Research Centre to relieve him as he was interested in joining his post at Kanpur. On August 16, 1983 the Board of Management passed a resolution which reads as under : " 47 : 2 Item No. 46 : 3 : The Board was of the view that extent of defraudation required severe punishment leading to the dismissal of Dr. On August 16, 1983 the Board of Management passed a resolution which reads as under : " 47 : 2 Item No. 46 : 3 : The Board was of the view that extent of defraudation required severe punishment leading to the dismissal of Dr. J. S. Sindhu but taking into consideration his long service the Board desired that from the point of view of correcting the conduct of the officer the following punishment be awarded : (1) One increment may be withheld for a period of two years which will have effect of postponing future increments. (2) An adverse entry be recorded in the character roll of Dr. J. S. Sindhu in respect of his doubtful integrity. (3) Dr. Sindhu be transferred from his present position and the authority of Drawing and Disbursing be not allowed to Dr. Sindhu. It was challenged by way of writ petition no. 10727 of 1983 which was dismissed, presumably because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the resolution of the Board of Management before the Chancellor who by his order dated 26th April, 1984 quashed it and remanded the case to the University. The operative portion of order is extracted below : "In view of the above circumstances, I hereby quash the resolution of the Board of Management in question and remand the case to the University for fresh decision with the direction that the petitioner may be supplied with copies of all the material evidence reliance on which is placed by the University in support of the various charges framed against the petitioner and he may be given opportunity to meet the same. The University is further directed to state in the finding as to which of the charges have not been established against the petitioner by the evidence and on which of the charges the punishment, if any, is being imposed. " In pursuance of this direction a charge sheet was served on 10th August, 1984 requiring petitioner to file the written statement on or before 25th August, 1984 and to inform the Vice Chancellor who had sent the charge sheet if the petitioner desired to be heard in person or he would like to examine himself or cross examine any witness. Charges 1 to 7 were reiteration verbatiem of the acts and omissions narrated in show cause notice issued on 13th August, 1982. Failure to adjust advance which was 6th irregularity pointed out in 1982 was dropped probably because the explanation of petitioner was satisfactory. One new charge was added of purchasing cotton and locks worth Rs. 257.80 p. in excess of schedule rate. On 22nd August, 1984 petitioner sent a letter and informed the Vice Chancellor, "In his above quoted order the Chancellor had directed the University to supply the petitioner with copies of all the material/evidence reliance on which is placed by the University in support of various charges framed against the petitioner. You are, therefore, requested to kindly supply me copies of all such documents on which you relied while framing these charges against me. An early action will help me in replying the charges. " Having received no reply the petitioner submitted the written statement on 25th August, 1984 giving reply to each of the charges in detail. On 18th December, 1985 the Board of Management passed a resolution removing petitioner from service of the University as the charges in nut shell were found established against petitioner-one that he secured his appointment by misrepresenting the Commission that he was Ph.D. when in fact he did not possess Ph.D. degree, second that he left for Canada without sanction of leave which was contrary to rules. 4. Having narrated the factual background the first and the main issue may be taken up. From the extract of the order of Chancellor it is clear that the University was directed to supply copies of material evidence on which reliance was placed by University and to give opportunity to petitioner to meet it. Copy of the letter sent by petitioner on 22nd August, 1984 requesting to supply material after service of charge sheet has been extracted above. But the letter was neither replied nor any copy was supplied to petitioner. In paragraph 43 and 44 of the petition it is asserted that petitioner demanded personal hearing and wanted to produce witnesses but neither any material was supplied nor petitioner was heard nor he was permitted to examine witnesses. But the letter was neither replied nor any copy was supplied to petitioner. In paragraph 43 and 44 of the petition it is asserted that petitioner demanded personal hearing and wanted to produce witnesses but neither any material was supplied nor petitioner was heard nor he was permitted to examine witnesses. In paragraph 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the Supplementary affidavit it is alleged that no inquiry proceedings was held in presence of petitioner nor any evidence was recorded nor was he informed that any inquiry officer had been appointed by any communication nor he was informed of any date by inquiry officer and everything was done behind back of petitioner and the inquiry officer never informed about any proceeding. Its reply has been given in paragraphs 27, 28, 65, 72 and 73 of the counter affidavit. Relevant portion of the averments reads as under : Para 27 ; That on 10-8-1984, a charge sheet was issued by the Vice Chancellor to Dr. Sindhu, which has already been attached to the writ petition as Annexure 13. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 25-10-1984 and the University had shown him all the relevant papers and evidence. The petitioner has inspected himself personally several times in the office of the Vice Chancellor the relevant file and the papers relating to the charges contained in the charge sheet dated 10-8-84 and the petitioner was afforded all the opportunities to rebut the charges levelled against him. Para 29 : That the petitioner has given all his evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report dated 24-1-1985. Thereafter the Board of Management in its meeting dated 18-12-1985, considered the enquiry report......... Para 65 : The Vice Chancellor has appointed the Enquiry Officer (Director Administration and Monitoring of the University) on 22-11-1984 for enquiring into the allegations against the petitioner and a detailed enquiry has been held by the aforesaid enquiry officer. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry fully and he has given all the evidence etc. before the enquiry officer, who has submitted his report on 24-1-1985. Para 72 : Before the aforesaid Enquiry Officer, the petitioner appeared and participated in the enquiry and each and every paper, which is relevant and which was relied upon by the University, was made available to the petitioner. before the enquiry officer, who has submitted his report on 24-1-1985. Para 72 : Before the aforesaid Enquiry Officer, the petitioner appeared and participated in the enquiry and each and every paper, which is relevant and which was relied upon by the University, was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner was extended full cooperation and he inspected the same and even made copies of various papers before the enquiry officer. Para 73 : There is no violation of principle of Natural justice. The enquiry officer, of the rank of senior PCS Officer, was appointed and the charge sheet was submitted to the petitioner and all the documents and papers connected with the matter were made available to the petitioner. He was also afforded opportunity of inspection of papers and copying down the same. During the course of enquiry right from the beginning to end, the petitioner did not specify as to which particular paper or set of papers, were required by him so that University may supply. The allegations of supplementary affidavit have not been specifically replied in the supplementary counter affidavit as reply in this regard is stated to have been given in the counter affidavit. Since averments in counter affidavit were emphatic the extracts of which have been quoted above the record of the University were sent for. And it was distressing to find that an Office Superintendent of an University has sworn the affidavit without realising the gravity of it. From the record it transpired that after submission of petitioners reply the Vice Chancellor on 22nd November, 1984 appointed Director of Administration and Monitoring of University, a PCS Officer, as an Enquiry Officer but the Enquiry Officer did not fix any date nor did he take any proceeding except that he submitted his report on 24th January, 1985. The averments that petitioner gave, all his evidence before the Enquiry Officer, is incorrect not supported by the record. When the inquiry officer did not fix any date there was no occasion for petitioner to lead any evidence or, holding of a detailed inquiry by the Enquiry Officer or that petitioner, participated in the inquiry fully or that every paper which was relied by the petitioner was made available to petitioner. When the inquiry officer did not fix any date there was no occasion for petitioner to lead any evidence or, holding of a detailed inquiry by the Enquiry Officer or that petitioner, participated in the inquiry fully or that every paper which was relied by the petitioner was made available to petitioner. The averment that, during course of inquiry right from the beginning to end, the petitioner did not specify as to which particular paper or set of papers was required by him so that the University may supply it, to say the least, has been made to mislead this court. When the inquiry officer did not take any proceeding nor fixed any date where was the question of beginning of inquiry and its end. In absence of any material on the record of the University to establish that petitioner even came to know that an inquiry officer had been appointed there could neither be participation nor hearing. All these averments have been sworn partly on personal knowledge and partly on record without specifying which part was on personal knowledge of the deponent. In fact whether petitioner was afforded opportunity or he was heard or he inspected the records or he participated or he knew about inquiry could be matter of record only. But it could not be substantiated from the record produced on behalf of University. There is thus no doubt that the officer who filed the affidavit and is expected to know the heavy responsibility that lies on shoulder of officers of public bodies to be precise and authentic as petitions are decided on affidavit filed in his duty. 5. On the letter which was sent by petitioner on 22nd August, 1985 asking for copies of the documents on which the University intended to rely the last five lines were marked by the Vice Chancellor as 'Ka' on 24th August, 1984 and it was referred to the Director of Administration that is, the inquiry officer. Thereafter on 27th August, there is an endorsement immediate. Below it is endorsement that steps may be taken in accordance with 'ka' ('ka' ke anusar karyawahi kare). Then came the last noting on 30th August, 1984, that papers had been shown on 20th August, 1984. Thereafter on 27th August, there is an endorsement immediate. Below it is endorsement that steps may be taken in accordance with 'ka' ('ka' ke anusar karyawahi kare). Then came the last noting on 30th August, 1984, that papers had been shown on 20th August, 1984. And petitioner has not made demand for any specific document (kagzat 20-8-84 ko dikha diye gaye hain inhone kisi vishaya kagzat ki mang nahin ki hai) apart from these notings there is also recording of order sheet which needs be extracted. ON 31st July, 1984 the order sheet reads that no delay should be made in submitting charge sheet to petitioner. The next noting is dated 17th August, 1984 that charge sheet has been served on Dr. Sindhu who may be shown any paper desired by him. Thereafter there are two notings, one on same day dated 17th and other 20th August, both by the same officer who made the endorsement in letter on 30th August, who is only an assistant in office of Inquiry Officer, to following effect: Dr. Sindhu has perused all the papers and has prepared copies of some documents. He has not made any request for any particular document. Even before Dr. Sindhu has perused the documents on number of occasion. And on 20th August, in the side it was recorded, papers have been shown again to Dr. Sindhu, That is the end of the order sheet which happens to be the last page. 6. The averment that petitioner did not specify the document copy of which was desired by him is not only astonishing but is clearly in teeth of the Chancellors direction. From facts narrated earlier it is clear that even on the first occasion that is in 1982 no inquiry was held The show cause notice issued in 1982 or the charge sheet issued in 1984 did not mention any document on which the University intended to rely. It was precisely for this reason that Chancellor had directed the University to furnish copies of documents and material on which it intended to rely. The University instead of complying has conveniently placed the burden on petitioner who could specify the document only if he knew that the University was going to rely on it. It was precisely for this reason that Chancellor had directed the University to furnish copies of documents and material on which it intended to rely. The University instead of complying has conveniently placed the burden on petitioner who could specify the document only if he knew that the University was going to rely on it. The hollowness of the untenable stand is demonstrated by various annexures filed with counter affidavit which are letters sent by certain persons complaining that petitioner had misled commission, the report of Joint Secretary of Public Service Commission that petitioner had illegally secured his appointment and communication from Himachal Pradesh University against petitioner. These documents formed the basis for taking action against petitioner. It was either at the instance of University or by a complaint. How could the petitioner know about existence of these documents or that they formed part of the record. To blame him for not specifying the documents is not only unreasonable but unjustified. Relying on documents which are the basis for removal from service without giving the delinquent an opportunity to explain is not acceptable in any system of jurisprudence. And that also after direction of the Chancellor. What stands out clearly from those is that the Inquiry Officer did not supply any document to petitioner nor even the Vice Chancellor informed him while submitting the charge sheet that the University proposed to rely on any material in support of the charge sheet. It was clear violation of direction of the Chancellor. From notings on the order sheet and letter it is not established when and what record was shown to petitioner. It is too vague. It does not establish the date or time when the record was shown and by whom. Even this much could not be established that inspection was allowed to petitioner on his written or oral request or it was granted by the University of its own in pursuance of the order of Chancellor asking the petitioner to come and inspect the record. Although if such an order would have existed or it could have been established even then it would not have been strict compliance of the order of Chancellor who had directed the University to supply copies of documents or material on which it proposed to rely yet it may have occasioned examination if substantial compliance had been made. Although if such an order would have existed or it could have been established even then it would not have been strict compliance of the order of Chancellor who had directed the University to supply copies of documents or material on which it proposed to rely yet it may have occasioned examination if substantial compliance had been made. But in absence of it has opposite parties have miserably failed in their endeavour to satisfy that the order of Chancellor was complied with. In fact on the conclusions arrived at it is unnecessary to comment on these notings dated 30th August, 1984 on the letter and 17th and 20th August, 1984 on the order sheet but with utmost reluctance, they appear to be after thought and made for purposes of this petition, as manner their recording and the ink in which they have been written, are strikingly similar and appear to have been freshly written may be on same date. 7. Therefore, there is no vestige of doubt that the Board of Management did not grant any opportunity to petitioner. And it resolved to remove him from service basing its conclusions on a report submitted by the Inquiry Officer who not only did not supply the material as directed by the Chancellor but did not inform the petitioner that he was appointed as Inquiry Officer, and proposed to hold the inquiry on a specific date and petitioner may examine witnesses or produce evidence to substantiate his claim made in reply to show cause notice. Nor did he hear him. That is, the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer without affording adequate or even any opportunity to petitioner a method which is not acceptable in any system of law. Such wanton disregard of basic norms of ignoring the procedure is known as violation of Natural justice, a concept evolved and developed by equity courts as code of fair administration procedure. Although it cannot be defined with exactitude and precision yet its meaning is clear and definite. In any civilised jurisprudence and society governed by rule of law a delinquent cannot be penalised unless he has been afforded adequate opportunity to put up his defence and he has been heard. General notion of fair hearing extends to intimation or notice for production of evidence, opportunity to rebut and to appear, explain and argue. In any civilised jurisprudence and society governed by rule of law a delinquent cannot be penalised unless he has been afforded adequate opportunity to put up his defence and he has been heard. General notion of fair hearing extends to intimation or notice for production of evidence, opportunity to rebut and to appear, explain and argue. Out of these the last namely, hearing has at times been regulated and hearing through representation has been held sufficient compliance of rule of Natural justice. But there has been no compromise on first two which have consistently been held to be mandatory. And any effort by rule making authority or even Statute to whittle it down has been dealt with strong hands and such provision has been declared to be ultra vires. Similarly, any action of any authority specially of disciplinary authority founded on violation of these norms has not been upheld. Courts have been zealous in extending protection and striking down any order having been passed in disregard of these more or less universally accepted principle of natural justice as they have far reaching implications on fair play in any action specially administrative. In petitioner's case the entire proceedings stood vitiated as the petitioner was never informed by the Vice Chancellor or the University or the Enquiry Officer himself that they had been entrusted with responsibility of ascertaining the truth of various charges levelled against him. And each and every basic requirement of adhering to the rule of fair hearing was thrown to wind when the Inquiry Officer submitted his comments to disciplinary authority which furnished the foundation for taking action against petitioner without hearing even informing him about the material which was to be used against him and thus depriving him of rebutting it. Valiant effort was made by the learned counsel for the University to defend the order on behaviour and conduct of petitioner as it could be gathered from the report of Joint Secretary of Public Service Commission and the report from Registrar of Himachal Pradesh University. The fallacy of the submission lay in placing reliance on those very documents of which petitioner was never informed nor he was afforded any opportunity to defend. But stronger than this is the principle that where natural justice is violated it is no justification that the decision was. in fact correct. The fallacy of the submission lay in placing reliance on those very documents of which petitioner was never informed nor he was afforded any opportunity to defend. But stronger than this is the principle that where natural justice is violated it is no justification that the decision was. in fact correct. In Eari v. Slater and Wheeler (Airlyne) Ltd., 1973 IWLR 51, the proposition laid down in Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) Appeal Cases 40, that natural justice was only fair play in action was extended further and it was observed that the manner of dismissal cannot possibly be justified notwithstanding the fact that if a proper procedure had been adopted, he would still have been dismissed. The court held : " with respect to the Tribunal, we think it erred in holding that an unfair procedure which led to an injustice is incapable of rendering unfair, a dismissal which otherwise be fair. " Therefore, the opposite parties are precluded from taking cover under report of the Joint Secretary of Commission or even conduct of petitioner even though it shall be presently seen that the stand of opposite parties in this regard also is without substance, yet the order of removal having been passed without affording any opportunity it was intrinsically unfair and cannot be upheld even if on facts it would have been found to be justified. 8. Relevance of decisions, namely, State of Assam v. J. N. Roy, AIR 1975 SC 2277 , Dr. S. Dutt v. University of Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 150, Dr. Dhanpal Pandey v. Vice Chancellor, Bhagalpur University, 1974 LIR 621, R. S. Agarwal v. V. C. Agarwal University, Agra, 1971 ALJ 1294 relied by the learned counsel for University that Article 322 did not apply to a University teacher could not be comprehended as violation of principle of natural justice and applicability of safeguard of Article 311 of the Constitution to a member of a Civil Service are entirely different. The one is a constitutional guarantee extended to a member of Civil Service the other is a rule of procedural fairness, of universal applicability. The one is a constitutional guarantee extended to a member of Civil Service the other is a rule of procedural fairness, of universal applicability. Much was attempted to be made out of Statute 3 (f) of Chapter 21 of the Statute of the University and it was urged that since the statute permitted an employee against whom disciplinary action was intended to make representation only the order was not liable to be quashed only because the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. True the Board of Management was not required to give hearing but it did not empower the Inquiry Officer to throw over board all norms of fair play and submit a report without affording any opportunity to petitioner or hearing him. Ratio laid down in Chandram Tewari v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 117 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for university is out of context. Non supply of a document on which no reliance was placed by Inquiry (?) action is founded on a particular document and that is not supplied then there is no escape from conclusion arrived earlier that the order of removal is vitiated. thus the order of removal is not only infirm but bad as it was passed without complying with basic and primary requirement of natural justice of affording opportunity to a delinquent to explain the material that formed the basis for taking action against him. It is liable to be quashed because the University in complete disregard of the direction of the Chancellor neither supplied to petitioner the material on which it proposed to place reliance nor the Board of Management nor Vice Chancellor nor the Inquiry Officer gave any opportunity of participating in the inquiry much less of hearing. Although no further is required to be said but the learned counsel for University vehemently urged that principle of natural justice could not be put in straight jacket and even substantial compliance meets the requirement of law. Therefore, this court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. To support the submission he urged that inspection having been permitted and the petitioner being aware of every document which was to furnish foundation for action the responsibility was his to file effective reply and produce evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, this court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. To support the submission he urged that inspection having been permitted and the petitioner being aware of every document which was to furnish foundation for action the responsibility was his to file effective reply and produce evidence in rebuttal. But the petitioner except submitting a letter on 22nd August, did not even made any grievance in his reply to show cause notice. According to comply strictly with requirement of law the order could not be set aside unless the omission of the University resulted in any prejudice to petitioner. Vehement endeavour was made by learned counsel to demonstrate, by taking resort to letter sent by Secretary of the Public Service Commission, to establish that petitioner having misled the commission and obtained his appointment on incorrect facts the order was not only liable to be maintained but the writ petition be dismissed as petitioner was not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. Since each of these submissions is founded on well established principles on which this Court refuses to exercise its discretion the matter was examined thoroughly and in great detail to ascertain if the submission in its application to facts can withstand the scrutiny. Main sheet-anchor was the letter sent by Joint Secretary of Public Service Commission. To appreciate its impact it is necessary to narrate its contents. At whose instance this letter was written in 1982 by the Commission to Government in respect of petitioner's appointment is not mentioned. In 1980 the Commission itself had filed counter-affidavit in writ petition no. 6251 of 1975 challenging petitioner's appointment in Agriculture Service Class I and it was stated that petitioner satisfied the essential requirement and was most suitable for appointment. However, the letter mentions the requirement of advertisement, the mention by petitioner in his application filed on September, 1973 that he was Ph. D. of 1973, the submission of thesis in June, 1973 Viva Voce examination in December, 1973, grant of doctorate in September, 1974, intimation by Meerut University that degree is awarded only by Executive Council supported by relevant rules in Statute of Meerut University which led the Joint Secretary to infer that petitioner was not Ph. D. in 1973 as no one could on provisional certificate claim to be Ph. D. in 1973 as no one could on provisional certificate claim to be Ph. D. It was also opined by him that petitioner could not be considered to be qualified as he did not satisfy the essential qualifications consequently he obtained his appointment by misleading and misrepresenting the facts before the Commission. Apart from the unknown source and reason for the inquiry and issuance of the letter by the Joint Secretary the inference drawn and conclusion arrived appear to proceed on surmises and conjectures and misapprehension of correct facts. True the petitioner did mention Ph. D. in 1973. Presumably because he had submitted his thesis in June, 1973, and his viva voce was fixed in December, 1973. May be not very accurate. But he had also mentioned other qualifications to entitle him to be considered as possessing alternative essential qualifications. However, when interview letter was issued he was asked to bring his degree which he did produce. And the factum of its having been issued in 1974 and its absence on the application was known to the Commission as even though petitioner in his application had mentioned Ph. D, in 1973 the Commission in its note clearly stated Ph. D. in 1973-74. Therefore, the Commission knew that petitioner was not Ph. D. in 1973 or on the date of his application and yet it selected him as he was the best candidate. Where was securing appointment by mis-leading or mis-representing ? Facts being known the Commission as is established by its noting and production of degree at time of interview the occasion to deceive was non existent. Such strong inference has been attempted to be drawn on so slender rather no material. No reasonable person could have come to conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misleading or misrepresenting. In any case the power to pardon irregularity of inaccurate disclosure was in exclusive domain of the Commission which interviewed and selected petitioner and not in the assumed exercise of supervisory power by the Joint Secretary. If the Commission chose to ignore or condone the incorrect mention in the application, the Joint Secretary after a lapse of five years could not sit over judgment on the wisdom of the Commission. If the Commission chose to ignore or condone the incorrect mention in the application, the Joint Secretary after a lapse of five years could not sit over judgment on the wisdom of the Commission. Truely speaking this letter was wholly irrelevant and could not form basis for concluding that petitioner secured his appointment by misleading or misrepresenting, therefore, the finding of the disciplinary authority on this aspect is not sustainable on merits even. 9. Although it is not normally function of this Court to examine the findings recorded by disciplinary authority except on very limited scope of procedural irregularity or violation of principle of natural justice etc. Yet it having been found that the finding on first charge cannot be upheld on merits it appears necessary to examine the finding on second charge as well, namely, proceeding to Canada without taking leave which in fact provided the occasion to initiate proceedings against petitioner after the writ petition filed by Dr. Udal Singh had been dismissed to ascertain if the order can be upheld to warrant removal of petitioner due to findings recorded on this charge. That the petitioner had applied for leave is not disputed nor it is denied that he postponed his departure to Canada on 1st November, 1981 as the meeting of Board of Management was scheduled to be held on 15th November, 1981. But when the meeting was postponed and petitioner had already incurred financial loss in postponing his departure once he left for Canada on oral assurance and permission of the Vice Chancellor. The Inquiry Officer in his comments did not disbelieve petitioner that he was not orally assured or permitted but he observed that no evidence was available about oral talk between petitioner and the Vice Chancellor. He, therefore, suggested that the comments of the Vice Chancellor may be obtained on it. And yet the disciplinary authority, that is the Board of Management, did not care to ascertain it from the Vice Chancellor if petitioner was orally permitted or not and proceeded to record the finding that petitioner was guilty of disobeying orders and remaining absent. The order or even the counter-affidavit does not refer to any order directing petitioner not to proceed to Canada unless leave was sanctioned. The order or even the counter-affidavit does not refer to any order directing petitioner not to proceed to Canada unless leave was sanctioned. Not only this the opposite parties even in the counter affidavit did not state that the Vice Chancellor informed by any letter or correspondence that he had not orally permitted the petitioner. The averment in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that petitioner proceeded to Canada on 20th November, 1981 after the meeting of Board of Management was postponed on oral permission of the Vice Chancellor, has been replied in paragraph 51 of the counter affidavit as incorrect. And it is stated that Vice Chancellor had not given any oral permission to petitioner to proceed on 20th November, 1981. In swearing clause this part appears to have been sworn on perusal of record and yet the learned counsel could not put his finger on any document on record to show that the Vice Chancellor had informed the University earlier or at any point of time before filing of counter-affidavit that he had not granted oral permission. In fact if the Vice Chancellor permitted petitioner to proceed he did not act unusually as this appears to be regular practice of the University. Therefore, there was no material on which the opposite parties could hold that the petitioner proceeded without any oral permission from the Vice Chancellor. 10. Apart from it was the Board of Management justified in concluding that petitioner having proceeded on leave without permission was guilty of acting in breach of rules which did not justify his retention in service. It may be clarified at the outset that in embarking upon this inquiry this court is not attempting to reappraise evidence and form its opinion but to demonstrate that in case of petitioner the Board arbitrarily departed from its earlier practice and chose to penalise petitioner for reasons which are not easily explainable and is left to speculation. It is not denied that petitioner because of enormous research work was awarded Professional Development Award by the International Development Research Centre after he had appeared in interview for selection after obtaining no objection certificate by the University. It is not denied that petitioner because of enormous research work was awarded Professional Development Award by the International Development Research Centre after he had appeared in interview for selection after obtaining no objection certificate by the University. Nor it is denied that be did apply for leave on 18th August, 1981 or that his Scheduled departure from 1st November, 1981 was postponed to 20th November, because the meeting of Board was to be held on 15th November, 1981 which was adjourned. In respect of oral permission granted by the Vice Chancellor facts have already been narrated. But what is the most important undisputed fact is stated thus in paragraph 27 of the supplementary affidavit : " The same Board of Management of the University sanctioned leave of two such employees of the University who had gone aboard without prior sanction of the leave or any administrative orders. These two persons, Dr. Mahipal Singh, Virologist at Mathura campus and Sri Islam Ahmad at Kanpur campus were granted leave on their return to India through the following two names of the meeting of the Board proceedings of the meeting of the Board. "Mere denial without disputing the correctness of resolution is of no consequence. In absence of any explanation the action of Management was arbitrary as it did not deal with persons similarly situated unfirmity. Granting leave after return to some and refusing it to another without adequate reason which resulted not only in cutting short the petitioners visit to Canada but his removal from service was highly discriminatory. Further a perusal of the earlier order of punishment extracted earlier does not leave any doubt that the Management did not find petitioner guilty of this charge probably because the Board must have been aware of prevailing practice of sanctioning leave even latter on. An august body like the Board of Management is not expected to alter its opinion which may even create a suspicion that the order was passed as a measure of vindicliviness rather than honest, fair and objective opinion based on material on record. Nor is there any merit in argument of substantial compliance. Since the opposite parties have failed to satisfy that petitioner was supplied, copies of documents on which the University proposed to place reliance. It was squarely hit by the principle of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of natural justice and flagrant violation of Chancellor's discretion. Nor is there any merit in argument of substantial compliance. Since the opposite parties have failed to satisfy that petitioner was supplied, copies of documents on which the University proposed to place reliance. It was squarely hit by the principle of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of natural justice and flagrant violation of Chancellor's discretion. Even this much could not be established that petitioner was aware of the documents on which the University intended to rely. The notings dated 17th and 20th and 30th August, on the order sheet and letter do not even remotely suggest that petitioner took notes of these documents which were relied by the inquiry officer and the Management. In face of these the argument of substantial compliance is one of despair. Nor can the opposite party legitimately urge that letter of the Joint Secretary Public Service Commission having been sent to petitioner by the Public Service Commission he cannot make any grievance of it as the petitioner could not give effective reply to it unless he was informed or he had any inking that it shall be relied against him. 11. Prejudice is writ large at the face of the order as earlier the Board of Management did not appear to have imposed any punishment to petitioner for leaving to Canada without sanction of leave. Because the finding of defraudation could relate only to securing appointment by misrepresentation. And yet in the second inquiry without any addition of further material the Board of Management found that the charge was not only established but it went further and directed that petitioner be removed from service. How faulty and arbitrary was the decision had been narrated earlier. It was bad also for change of opinion on same material. 12. Even the other legal issue if the petitioner could have been made worse than what he was before approaching Chancellor against order of minor punishment is not inconsequential. Power to impose major or minor punishment under statute or rules postulates exercise of discretion reasonably on valid grounds and in good faith. The Public authorities or any person entrusted with responsibility to administer law must not loose sight of fact that all power has legal limits. It has to be tested on touchstone of reasonableness. The line between exercise of discretion reasonably and otherwise is indeed thin but clear and marked. Does the order of removal withstand this test ? The Public authorities or any person entrusted with responsibility to administer law must not loose sight of fact that all power has legal limits. It has to be tested on touchstone of reasonableness. The line between exercise of discretion reasonably and otherwise is indeed thin but clear and marked. Does the order of removal withstand this test ? In 1982 when the Board passed the order it held that due to 'extent of defraudation,' which would refer to incorrect disclosure of his Ph. D. degree the petitioner was liable to minor punishment. But when it passed the order in 1985 the Board curiously enough on same material passed the order of removal. Why ? was there any change in circumstances ? did the Management come across any further material which justified the punishment ? None could be pointed out. Even if the material had been disclosed and the opposite party would have complied with natural justice it is doubtful if petitioner could have been removed from service and visited with more harsh punishment, without any further or additional material. Such action was violative of fairness and justness. If such actions are upheld it shall be destructive of the right to approach higher authorities against minor punishment for fear of becoming worse. It is capable of breeding arbitrariness as the disciplinary authority may become vindictive as in this case, if its order is set aside at the instance of delinquent by higher authority. An aggrieved person approaches the appellate or revising or higher authority by the part he is aggrieved for sake of redress and not for loosing even that which was in his favour in consequence of remand. May be that remand in certain circumstances may entitle authority to put in fresh order but mere change of opinion and that also to disadvantage of delinquent without any further material cannot be countenanced. The order of removal, therefore, is liable to be set aside even due to this infirmity. In view of the conclusions arrived it appears unnecessary to examine if the disclosure that petitioner was Ph. D. on the date he applied was incorrect was mere irregularity and it could not result in removal from service as he had acquired it on the date of interview selection and appointment. 13. Alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor by way of reference was vehemently pressed. But in Dr. D. on the date he applied was incorrect was mere irregularity and it could not result in removal from service as he had acquired it on the date of interview selection and appointment. 13. Alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor by way of reference was vehemently pressed. But in Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of H. K. Mahavidyalaya of State, 1987 Education Cases 334=1988 AWC 347 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that alternative remedy was not an absolute bar and when an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on ground of existence of an alternative remedy (underlined by us). An order passed without complying with principle of natural justice is nullity. Therefore, directing petitioner once again to approach the Chancellor whose directions were disobeyed does not appear to be just and fair. 14. For reasons stated above this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18th December, 1985 of the Board of Management removing petitioner from service is quashed. A direction is further issued to opposite parties to reinstate petitioner forthwith and grant him all the benefits treating him in service. For the period he has been in service elsewhere he shall not be paid his salary. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.