JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner Dr. S. S. Ahluwalia is the Director, Training and Placement, Bureau in the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, district Nainital. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the University Thereafter, he was appointed as Dean of the Students' welfare in the University. Subsequently, he was appointed on the post he is holding at present. While the petitioner was working as Dean of Students' Welfare, certain charges were levelled against the petitioner in pursuance of a communication issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, vide its letter dated 24 August, 1983. In this letter, the Secretary had specifically mentioned that no evidence had been found against the petitioner of having taken bribe, but certain irregularities had been committed by him during the course of his functioning as Dean of Students' Welfare and, consequently, it was necessary to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. 3. An enquiry was held against the petitioner and a report dated 24th March, 1987, was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. After this report was submitted, on 18th August, 1988, the Vice Chancellor of the University issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the notice as to why he be not awarded a major punishment, including termination of his services. In this letter, the Vice Chancellor specifically stated as under "(i) Charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stand proved. (ii) Charge No. 5 partially Stand proved and partially given benefit of doubt. (iii) Charge No. 7 given benefit of doubt." 4. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 5th September, 1988. Thereafter, on 28th December, 1988 the Vice Chancellor communicated to the petitioner that the Board of Management in its meeting held on 21st December, 1988, has resolved that he be dismissed from University's services with immediate effect. It is this order dated 28th December, 1988, which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition. The present petition was filed in this court on 2Sth January, 1989. It is this order dated 28th December, 1988, which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition. The present petition was filed in this court on 2Sth January, 1989. A Division Bench of this Court directed the University to file a reply within three weeks and three weeks' time thereafter was granted to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The Court further observed that after the counter and the rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, the entire matter shall be disposed of on merits. In the circumstances, we are disposing of this petition on merits finally. 5. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. N. Varma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dinesh Kacker, learned counsel for the University. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions before us. The first submission is that the charges, which have been framed against the petitioner relate to incidents which are very old and stale and, consequently, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. The second submission of the learned counsel is that even on the basis of the enquiry report, which has been submitted against the petitioner, it cannot be held that it amounts to misconduct, and, consequently the punishment given to the petitioner cannot be sustained. The third submission of the learned counsel is that even if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are accepted then too it is not a case where the order of dismissal could have been passed. His submission is that the order of dismissal is not commensurate with the charges which have been found against the petitioner. In so far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, seven charges had been levelled against tie petitioner. The first charge related to the year f$78, the second charge to the year 1975-76. The third and fourth charges related to the year 1979, the fifth charge to the year 1980 and the sixth charge relate to the year 1978. So far as the Seventh charge is concerned, the matter stands closed as the petitioner was given benefit of doubt. In fact, the charges are from the year 1975 to the year 1980. 7. The third and fourth charges related to the year 1979, the fifth charge to the year 1980 and the sixth charge relate to the year 1978. So far as the Seventh charge is concerned, the matter stands closed as the petitioner was given benefit of doubt. In fact, the charges are from the year 1975 to the year 1980. 7. It Is not disputed that prior to the issuance of the charge sheet against the petitioner, the conduct of the enquiry was by virtue of a special audit report of the Local Funds Accounts. The enquiry was also conducted by the State Criminal Investigation Department. IT was only thereafter that the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, had written to the University to take action against the petitioner. 8. Considering the over-all circumstances of the case, we do not find that the charges against the petitioner can be called as stale or very old. The allegation against the petitioner was that he has committed certain irregularities while functioning as Dean of Students' Welfare. The aforesaid charge relates to the period four-five years prior to the enquiry before the disciplinary proceedings were taken. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that so far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, we do not agree with him. So far as the second contention of the petitioner is concerned, it. is not disputed by the parties that the action can be taken against (the petitioner on grounds, mentioned in Statute 4 which relates to the conditions of service, appointment, removal and control of the employees of the University, Clause (e) Statute 4, which has been attached to the petition, reads as under "(e) After confirmation, the services of an employee of the University can be terminated only on the following grounds : (1) mis-conduct including disobedience of the orders of the appropriate authority; (2) commission of any act which in the opinion of the Board involves moral turpitude; (3) misappropriation of the funds or property of the University ; (4) corruption (5) physical and mental unfitness; and (6) abolition of Post." 9. On a reading of sub-clauses (1) to (6) of Clause (e), we find that the petitioner's case could, possibly, if at all, come under sub-clause (1), namely, misconduct including disobedience of the orders of the appropriate authority. On a reading of sub-clauses (1) to (6) of Clause (e), we find that the petitioner's case could, possibly, if at all, come under sub-clause (1), namely, misconduct including disobedience of the orders of the appropriate authority. Action cannot be taken against the petitioner under any other sub-clauses because the charges which have been framed against the petitioner do not related to any other sub-clauses. 10. The word 'mis-conduct' has not been defined under the Statute and, consequently, we will have to rely upon the decision given by the various Courts in regard to the meaning to be given to the word 'mis-conduct' used in relation to the master and servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before us a decision given in Union of India v. J. Ahmad, AIR 1979 SC 1022 . The Honourable Supreme Court has quoted with approval the meeting given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which runs as under; " 'Mis-conduct' means misconduct arising from ill motive, acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct." From the above definition, it is, consequently clear that an employee can be held liable for misconduct only if it arises from ill motive. The very act of negligence of an employee cannot constitute misconduct. The question whether, in the instant case, misconduct arose from ill motive, has not been examined. If at all any action can be taken against the petitioner, it can be taken only, as already observed above, under sub-clause (1) of Clause (e) and the Authority has to come to the conclusion that the misconduct committed by the delinquent arose out of ill motive. The second "submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted to the limited extent that since the impugned order does not say that the misconduct arose out of ill motive, consequently, the impugned order is vitiated in law. But the matter has to be examined by the Authority concerned in the light of the definition of the word 'mis-conduct', quoted above. 11. So far as the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this, in our opinion, is well founded. In the show cause notice, as has already been stated above, it has been stated that charge nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stands proved. 11. So far as the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this, in our opinion, is well founded. In the show cause notice, as has already been stated above, it has been stated that charge nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stands proved. It was because of this specific view which the Authority took of the enquiry report that the action has been taken against the petitioner. We have examined the enquiry report which has been annexed as Annexure 'CA-9' to the counter affidavit of the University. In regard to charge no. 1, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the manner in which the favour was shown to M/s. P. D. Gooha and Sons only creates suspicion. It cannot, consequently, be said that charge no. 1 stands proved against the petitioner. It is only a case of suspicion. In regard to charge no. 2, the Enquiry Officer has held that he feels that serious doubts have been created regarding collusion of the Dean of Students' Welfare with the contractor and to this extent, the Enquiry Officer found that there are serious doubts, but there is no finding of collusion. 12. In regard to the third charge, the finding is that in view of the failure of the petitioner to take any action for forfeiture of security money as well as the fact, that the contract was again awarded to the same contractor the Enquiry Officer feels that his collusion cannot be ruled out and the petitioner cannot be absorbed as Dean of the Students' Welfare of bis responsibility in this regard. In our opinion, the charge is not unequivocally established against the petitioner. In regard to charge no. 4, the Enquiry Officer has observed that for purchase of six locks, after purchasing 800 locks according to the Stores Purchase Manual, the Vice Chancellor's approval was not necessary, since the six locks costed about Rs. 200/,- and to this extent, the charge is not established. In regard to this charge also, it cannot possibly be said that the charge stands proved against the petitioner. 13. So far as charge no. 5 is concerned, it has only been found that the collusion with suppliers is extremely likely. It cannot be said that the charge has been unequivocally established against him. 14. So far as charge no. In regard to this charge also, it cannot possibly be said that the charge stands proved against the petitioner. 13. So far as charge no. 5 is concerned, it has only been found that the collusion with suppliers is extremely likely. It cannot be said that the charge has been unequivocally established against him. 14. So far as charge no. 6 is concerned, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the collusion of the petitioner with the contractor cannot be ruled out. In view of the failure of the petitioner to obtain prior approval of the Vice Chancellor and disobedience of the orders of the Vice Chancellor, the charge of misconduct is also established. This charge related to purchase of certain utensils. In regard to this charge, it can be said that the Enquiry Officer had found that the order of Vice Chancellor had been disregarded. So far as charge no. 7 is concerned, the petitioner has been relieved of the said charge. On a perusal of the enquiry report, consequently, we find that practically none of the charges has been proved against the petitioner. Only in charge no. 6, it has been said that the petitioner has disregarded the order of the Vice Chancellor. All the charges mainly relate to purchase of firewood, refrigerators, locks and brass wares for the purposes of the students because the petitioner was the Dean of Students' Welfare. 15. At the end of the report, the 'Enquiry Officer has further remarked that while some of the charges, as mentioned in the charge sheet, are established, he has the impression that the responsibility for some of the lapses or irregularities, mentioned in the charge sheet, must be shared by some other sections/individuals. 16. As already observed above, none of the charges has been unequivocally established against the petitioner. It has also not been established that the petitioner has got some personal gain out of any of the acts done while functioning as Dean of the Students' Welfare. In view of the report and in view of the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, we are clearly of the opinion that it is not a case where the punishment of dismissal should have been awarded to the petitioner. It is not at all commensurate with the charges found against the petitioner. 17. In the result, the petition is allowed. It is not at all commensurate with the charges found against the petitioner. 17. In the result, the petition is allowed. The resolution of the Board of Management dated 21st December, 1988, is quashed. The order dated 28th December, 1988, communicating the decision of the Board of Management is also quashed. The matter is referred back to the Board of Management to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner shall be given a copy of enquiry report as also an opportunity of being heard before the Board of Management takes a final decision in the matter. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and shall be paid his arrears of salary within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Authority concerned. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.