H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was an officer employee of the respondent-university of agricultural sciences, g. k. v. k. , Bangalore, till the impugned orders of compulsory retirement from service was passed by board of regents of the university dated 9-2-1998. He was working as associate professor of soil sciences in the regional research centre at brahmavar, dakshina kannada, at the relevant point of time. authority, the delinquent officer, by yet another letter dated 12-5-1997, repeated the earlier request. Since he did not receive any reply from the disciplinary authority of the respondent-university, petitioner without the assistance of any documents, the deposition of witnesses, filed his reply dated 26-6-1997 inter alia taking up several contentions, to which i will refer to it little later, and further requested the disciplinary authority not to accept the recommendation made by the enquiry committee. ( 2 ) THE respondent-university on the basis of the complaint lodged by Dr. A. s. kumaraswamy, who was working as in charge associate director of research at brahmavar, dakshina kannada, had issued a show-cause notice dated 4-10-1996, inter alia alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the petitioner, while working as associate professor of soil sciences at brahmavar. The show-cause notice directed the petitioner to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, why disciplinary action should not. Be initiated against him for the alleged lapses contained in the notice. this notice came to be replied by the petitioner by his reply letter dated 9-11-1996, denying the contents in the notice. Respondents not being satisfied with the explanation offered and in contemplation of domestic enquiry proceedings issued an order dated 14 11-1996 keeping the petitioner under suspension and on the same day, the university in exercise of its power under statute 11. 1 (a) of the statutes constituted an enquiry committee to inquire into the alleged acts of misconduct contained in the show-cause notice, without even issuing a forma! Charge memo, statement of imputations, list of documents and the witness list. 1 (a) of the statutes constituted an enquiry committee to inquire into the alleged acts of misconduct contained in the show-cause notice, without even issuing a forma! Charge memo, statement of imputations, list of documents and the witness list. ( 3 ) THE enquiry committee so constituted by the disciplinary authority met for the first time on 7-2-1997 and on the same day closed the enquiry proceedings, and submitted its report finding petitioner guilty of the accusations made in the show-cause notice and further recommending to the disciplinary authority to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement from service and to treat the period of suspension as period not spent on duty. ( 4 ) THE board of regents, who is also the appointing and disciplinary authority in the petitioner's case after receipt of the report and the findings of the enquiry committee, being of the view that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated since delinquent official has not been provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, without accepting the report directed the enquiry committee to hold a fresh enquiry proceedings by giving sufficient opportunity to the delinquent official to cross-examine the management witnesses. Pursuant to the said direction, the enquiry committee met again on 13-11-1997 and once again closed the proceedings on the ostensible ground that the delinquent official had not co-operated with the enquiry proceedings, and thereafter they repeated their earlier report, and the recommendation. basing on the findings of the enquiry committee, and after accepting the punishment recommended in the report, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice to the delinquent official and further directed to file his reply, if any, to the proposed punishment. ( 5 ) IN response to this notice and in order to tile a proper explanation to the second show-cause notice, the delinquent official by his letter dated 25-4-1997 requested the disciplinary authority to furnish him with the copies of the order sheet/proceedings sheet, attested copies of the deposition of the witnesses and a copy of the reply filed by him dated 7-2-1997. Since the request was not even considered by the disciplinary ( 6 ) THE board of regents/appointing authority in its meeting held on 7-1-1998 after examining the case of the petitioner and without even concurring with the findings of the enquiry committee resolved to retire petitioner from service compulsorily under Rule 95 (3) of Karnataka civil services rules. Since the request was not even considered by the disciplinary ( 6 ) THE board of regents/appointing authority in its meeting held on 7-1-1998 after examining the case of the petitioner and without even concurring with the findings of the enquiry committee resolved to retire petitioner from service compulsorily under Rule 95 (3) of Karnataka civil services rules. The resolution of the board of regents was communicated by the administrative officer of the university by his official memorandum No. Ao/enq/as/cr/98, dated 9-2-1998. The order reads as under: ( 7 ) UNDER the circumstances stated in the preamble, the appointing authority i. e. , the board of regents after careful examination of the enquiry committee findings accepting the penalty of compulsory retirement (under Rule 95 (3) of kcsrs) proposed for imposition and fully satisfied that the quantum of punishment proposed is commensurate with the charge proved. therefore, Dr. A. s. shirwal, associate professor (soil science), regional research station, brahmavar, who is under suspension, is retired compulsorily from the services of this university with immediate effect, by treating the period of his suspension from 14-11-1996 to the date of this order as 'suspension period' restricting his salary to the subsistence allowance admissible. by order sd/- administrative officer i/c ( 8 ) PETITIONER, aggrieved by the aforesaid communication had filed an appeal petition before the appellate authority. The appeal petition so filed is considered by the dean of the university and by his recommendation dated 21-3-1998 recommends for rejection of the memorandum of appeal filed by the delinquent official and this is once again communicated to the petitioner by the administrative officer of the university by his official memorandum No. Ao/enq/as/ap/98, dated 3-4-1998. The same is as under"university of agricultural sciences by regd. Post ack. Due administrative office, gkvk: Bangalore-65 date: 3-4-1998. No. Ao/enq/as/ap/98 sub: appeal petition of Dr. A. s. shirwal against the order retiring him compulsorily from the university service. ref: 1. Order No. Ao/enq/as/cr/98, dated 9-2-1998 retiring Dr. a. s. shirwal, associate professor (soil science), rrs, brahmavar, compulsorily from the university service. 2. Appeal petition (dated 9-3-1998) of Dr. A. s. shirwal. 3. Recommendation of the dean, uas, gkvk, dated 21-3-1998. 4. Orders of the vice-chancellor, uas, gkvk, dated 31-3-1998. endorsement: Dr. A. s. shirwal, who was compulsorily retired from the university service vide order dated 9-2-1998 (ref. a. s. shirwal, associate professor (soil science), rrs, brahmavar, compulsorily from the university service. 2. Appeal petition (dated 9-3-1998) of Dr. A. s. shirwal. 3. Recommendation of the dean, uas, gkvk, dated 21-3-1998. 4. Orders of the vice-chancellor, uas, gkvk, dated 31-3-1998. endorsement: Dr. A. s. shirwal, who was compulsorily retired from the university service vide order dated 9-2-1998 (ref. 1) is hereby informed that his compulsory retirement is as per the decision taken by the board in its 262nd meeting held on 7-1-1998. further, his appeal petition (ref. 2) is examined in detail and it is found that there is no justification whatsoever in his appeal petition, in support of his case. by order so/- administrative officer i/c. to Dr. A. s. shirwal, No. 7, shreedevi soudha, i main uas layout, rmv ii stage, Bangalore-94". ( 9 ) PETITIONER aggrieved by this arbitrary, most fanciful, unfair and unjust action, is before this court in this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, inter alia seeking a writ to quash the show-cause notice dated 4-10-1996, the order of suspension dated 14-11-1996, the findings of the enquiry committee dated 13-11- 1997, the order of the disciplinary authority as communicated in the official memorandum dated 9-2-1998 and the endorsement dated 3-4-1998 rejecting his appeal. Petitioner also seeks costs of this petition from the respondents. ( 10 ) SRI r. Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing of the petition, reiterates the grounds urged in the petition in support of the reliefs sought in the petition. Sri shashidar, the learned counsel for the respondent-university hesitates to support the orders made by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. ( 11 ) AT this stage before i deal with the merits of the matter, i should notice that a responsible university like respondents in a serious matter of this nature, have not even maintained any records of the enquiry proceedings. In spite of my repeated directions to produce the records of the enquiry proceedings maintained by the enquiry committee, the resolution of the board of regents and the records of the appellate authority, the learned counsel for the respondent-university informs me that the records are not available in the university. The answer of the learned cpunsel is not only shocking and it also reflects the sorry state of affairs that is prevailing in the university. The answer of the learned cpunsel is not only shocking and it also reflects the sorry state of affairs that is prevailing in the university. ( 12 ) IN my opinion, after considering the documents produced by the petitioner along with his writ petition docket and after perusing a few pieces of papers produced by the learned counsel for respondent-university, the petitioner has to succeed on all counts right from the stage of initiation of proceedings till it culminated with the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. ( 13 ) LET me first commence from the stage of charge memo. The delinquent officer on oath asserts that the disciplinary authority of the respondent-authority had not prepared and had not served the charge memo on him before initiating the domestic enquiry proceedings. The respondent-university in its objection statement asserts that the charge memo could not be served on the delinquent official since he refused to claim the registered post by which charge memo had been sent to the petitioner's last known address. But in spite of my repeated directions, they even refuse to produce those documents. The only inference that i can draw from their refusal to produce these documents is that they had not prepared the charge memo at any point of time and they proceeded with the domestic enquiry proceedings merely based on the accusations made in the show-cause notice dated 4-10-1996 issued on the basis of the complaint of the 4th respondent herein. ( 14 ) THE Supreme Court in s. Partap singh v State of Punjab, was pleased to observe that a formal departmental enquiry is usually initiated after a prima facie case is made out against a government servant. for the purpose of arriving at this prima facie satisfaction, the government can even hold a preliminary enquiry into the allegations or complaint which it has received against a public servant. Although these allegations and complaints are also referred to as charges, they are informal in character. The formal charge-sheet is the one which is issued in terms of the Provisions of service laws or rules and can be generally referred to as meaning the charges formally framed and communicated to the government servant with the intimation that a formal departmental enquiry had been initiated against him on those charges. The formal charge-sheet is the one which is issued in terms of the Provisions of service laws or rules and can be generally referred to as meaning the charges formally framed and communicated to the government servant with the intimation that a formal departmental enquiry had been initiated against him on those charges. ( 15 ) IN khem chand v union of India and others, the apex court was pleased to explain the object and purpose of issuing a charge memo to the person, who is charged with misconduct. The court was pleased to observe:"the object of furnishing a charge-sheet is to give an opportunity to the person, who is charged with misconduct to give an explanation to defend himself. The Rule of natural Justice requires that the person charged should know the nature of the offence with which he is charged and should be given an opportunity to defend himself and to give proper explanation. The first thing necessary in a departmental enquiry is that the ground on which it was proposed to take action against an officer shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges and communicated to the person charged together with a statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of circumstances, which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing the orders in the case". ( 16 ) IN the present case, as I have already noticed, the respondent-university without even serving the charge memo and the statement of imputation of misconduct on the petitioner has constituted a committee to enquire into the accusations made in the show-cause notice. In my opinion, the initiation of domestic enquiry proceedings is wholly opposed to the principles of natural justice, since the requirement to satisfy the above principles is that the delinquent officer must be provided with formal' accusations, so that he will have enough opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. This is one of the fundamental and the essence of the concepts of fair play and justice. Since this essential requirement is ignored by the respondent-university, in my opinion, the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated, since the delinquent official was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner to effectively participate in the enquiry proceedings. Since this essential requirement is ignored by the respondent-university, in my opinion, the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated, since the delinquent official was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner to effectively participate in the enquiry proceedings. ( 17 ) THE respondent-university by its order dated 14-11-1996 keeps the petitioner under suspension, pending departmental enquiry. The suspension order indicates the purpose of the enquiry. A reading of it would indicate that the respondents intend to hold an enquiry into the complaint made by the 4th respondent, who was working as in charge associate director of research at brahmavar, dakshina kannada. The accusations against the delinquent officer seems to be interfering with the day-to-day administration of regional research station (rrs), brahmavar and also discharging the smooth functioning of the research station, apart from abusing the staff, misusing the office, std telephone, misleading the visiting farmers including the attempt to manhandle Sri b. k. ninge gowda, field assistant, working in the research station. Admittedly, the 4th respondent who is the complainant is the senior most officer at brahmavar research station. The disciplinary authority for the reasons best known to itself appoints the 4th respondent as the presenting officer to present the case of the university before the enquiry committee constituted on the day the petitioner was kept under suspension. This again is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Firstly, for the reason, the 4th respondent is an interested person, since he had lodged a complaint against the petitioner accusing him of several acts of omissions and commissions. In my opinion, at the most he could be cited as a witness in the enquiry proceedings. by appointing him, he would naturally be biased against the petitioner and he would go to any extent in the enquiry proceedings to substantiate the allegations and accusations made by him in his written complaint. This would naturally affect the case of the petitioner before the enquiry committee. Secondly, he is the senior most officer and in charge of the research station at brahmavar. All the witnesses which the management is supposed to have examined are subordinates working under him. This would naturally affect the case of the petitioner before the enquiry committee. Secondly, he is the senior most officer and in charge of the research station at brahmavar. All the witnesses which the management is supposed to have examined are subordinates working under him. Naturally, he would be in a position to bring pressure and influence them to sustain his complaint and that apart, before the senior most officer the witnesses may not be in a position to express their own understandings of the case and naturally they would be forced to toe the thinking of the complainant. Under these circumstances, it can never be said that the enquiry proceedings was held in a fair and just manner. This is the second ground which would vitiate the enquiry proceedings. ( 18 ) THIRDLY, the enquiry committee that was constituted by the disciplinary authority of the university consisted of Dr. M. c. devaiah, dean of the university, Dr. G. s. bhat, head of the division of dairy sciences and one Dr. S. l. shanbhoghe, the head of division of fishery science. The enquiry committee, it appears met for the first time on 7-12-1997. The proceedings relating to that day is not even recorded by the enquiry committee. The university authorities in their affidavit filed on 13-4-2000 before this court, state that the committee has not maintained any separate order sheet as it is not stipulated under cca rules. A very strange way of offering excuse for its lapse. They expect this court not only to believe but to digest it. I do not want to say much on this, lest, it would be characterised as casting aspersions on the performance of the chairman of the committee, who is supposed to be dean of the institution. The records furnished by the university's learned counsel does not indicate that the enquiry committee had recorded any evidence of anyone of the witnesses on 7-12-1997. I cannot even decipher on what material the enquiry committee had furnished its report and the finding of guilt of the delinquent official to the board of regents which is also the disciplinary authority. ( 19 ) THE board of regents in its meeting held on 30-7-1997 found fault with the procedure adopted by the enquiry committee and therefore, remanded the matter to the enquiry committee to permit the delinquent official to cross-examine the witnesses. ( 19 ) THE board of regents in its meeting held on 30-7-1997 found fault with the procedure adopted by the enquiry committee and therefore, remanded the matter to the enquiry committee to permit the delinquent official to cross-examine the witnesses. Pursuant to such direction, it appears the enquiry committee met on 13-11-1997 and on the ground that the delinquent official did not co-operate with the enquiry, closed the proceedings and thereafter, have submitted a report. From the records produced before the court, it appears that the enquiry committee has secured the written statement of the witnesses without offering them for cross-examination of delinquent official and thereafter have submitted a sketchy report and to add insult to injury, they even go to the extent of recommending the punishment that should be imposed on the delinquent official. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the enquiry committee cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, for the reason that the enquiry proceedings held by the committee was in utter violation of the principles of natural Justice and secondly, there was no evidence whatsoever to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent official and therefore the findings are wholly perverse. It is now well-settled that the high court under article 226 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The power of judicial review is available to the court if the findings of the enquiry committee/disciplinary authority is based on no evidence at all. While explaining this well-settled proposition of law, the Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of kuldeep singh v commissioner of police and others, was pleased to observe as under:"6. It is no doubt true that the high court under article 226 or this court under article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the court interfere. The court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the high court as also to this court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the superior authority. 7. In nand kishore prasad v state of bihar, it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of quasijudicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which, and, that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer would be perverse. 8. The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This principle was laid down by this court in state of Andhra Pradesh v s. Sree rama rao, in which the question was whether the high court, under article 226, could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was followed in central bank of India limited v prakash chand jain and M/s. Bharat iron works v bhagubhai balubhai patel and others. In rajinder kumar kindra v Delhi administration through secretary (labour) and others, it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. In rajinder kumar kindra v Delhi administration through secretary (labour) and others, it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated. 9. Normally, the high court and this court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with". ( 20 ) KEEPING in view this well-settled legal proposition in view, let me notice the fact situation in the instant case. From the records of the enquiry proceedings produced by the university's learned counsel, it can safely be said that the disciplinary authority had not examined any witnesses in support of the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. the enquiry committee has merely relied upon the written statement filed by the witnesses without even permitting the delinquent official to cross-examine those witnesses by supplying the so-called deposition to the delinquent officer. The enquiry committee based on this sort of evidence proceeds to hold that the delinquent official is guilty of misconduct alleged in the show-cause notice. In my opinion, this is a case where findings of misconduct is based on no evidence and the findings are based on mere conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry committee is wholly perverse. In my opinion, this is a case where findings of misconduct is based on no evidence and the findings are based on mere conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry committee is wholly perverse. ( 21 ) SECONDLY on general principles, it is now well-settled that 'natural justice' requires that a party be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the employer in support of the charges. In the instant case, the enquiry committee secures the written statement of the witnesses and does not even permit the delinquent official to cross-examine them on the ostensible ground that the delinquent official did not co-operate with the enquiry. They have not even recorded any proceedings conducted by them. Therefore, necessarily the assertion made by the delinquent official that he was not supplied with the written statement made by the witnesses and he was not permitted to cross-examine them has to be accepted. Therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated, since they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. In my opinion, on the face of the records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents it can be said that there was no enquiry in accordance with law and basing on such findings of the enquiry proceedings the disciplinary authority could not have come to the conclusion that the delinquent officer was guilty of misconduct alleged in the show-cause notice and could not have imposed any punishment much less compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the services of the respondent-university. ( 22 ) THEN i come to the orders made by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the orders made by the disciplinary authority, the delinquent official had submitted a detailed memorandum of appeal taking up all grounds which have been raised in the writ petition filed before this court. Apart from others, the primary grounds urged in the appeal memo was with regard to violation of principles of natural justice, not providing an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, non-supply of material and relevant documents and deposition of witnesses and also with regard to the quantum of punishment recommended by the enquiry committee. However, the appellate authority based on the recommended action made by the dean of the university, who was one of the members of the enquiry committee rejects the appeal by one line order. However, the appellate authority based on the recommended action made by the dean of the university, who was one of the members of the enquiry committee rejects the appeal by one line order. what is produced before the court by the petitioner is the endorsement issued by the administrative officer of the university. The learned counsel for the respondent-university has carefully avoided to produce the records of the appellate authority. In the absence of the records and the proceedings of the appellate authority, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellate authority has not assigned any reasons tor rejecting the statutory appeal filed by the delinquent official. ( 23 ) IN my opinion, the appellate authority is obliged to apply its mind fairly to the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal raised by the delinquent official in the memorandum of appeal and pass a speaking order. A speaking order does not mean a lengthy judgment but the order must at least show that the appellate authority has considered the grounds of appeal raised and rejected the same for valid and proper grounds. This court would not sit as court of appeal over the orders made by the appellate authorities, but certainly can interfere, if the orders are made without satisfying the basic ingredient of proper application of mind. The order cannot be in a mechanical fashion. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of apex court in the case of state bank of bikaner and jaipur v prabhu dayal grover. In the said decision the apex court was pleased to observe as under:"13. That brings us to the order of the appellate authority. Under regulation 70 (2), the appellate authority is required to consider whether the findings recorded against the concerned officer are justified and/or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. This regulation also does not obligate the appellate authority to give any reasons for its order. This regulation also does not obligate the appellate authority to give any reasons for its order. Assuming, that by necessary implication this regulation also requires the appellate authority to give the reasons, still its order cannot be invalidated, as we find that it has discharged its obligation by considering the records and proceedings pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the disciplinary action and the submissions made by grover. In other words, the order clearly demonstrates that the appellate authority had applied its mind not only to the proceedings of the enquiry, but also the grounds raised by grover in his appeal and on such application found that there was no substance in the appeal". ( 24 ) IN the instant case, as I have already observed that the endorsement issued by the administrative officer of the university, while rejecting the petitioner's appeal, does not contain any reasons and the only reason mentioned in the order is that since they are concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority, they are rejecting the grounds of appeal raised by the delinquent officer in the appeal memo. Therefore, the order made by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. ( 25 ) THE statutes framed by the university do not provide for imposition of penalty of compulsorily retirement from service. However, respondents justify their action by relying on statute of the university and contend that in view of the above provision they can make use of the provision of kcsrs. Let me assume that they are justified in relying upon the Provisions of kcsrs in the absence of specific provision in the statute, then also in my opinion, the university could not have invoked Rule 95 (3) of kcsrs to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The Rule 95 (3) is as under:" (3) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a competent authority may remove or dismiss any government servant from government service or may require him to retire from it compulsorily on the ground of misconduct of insolvency or inefficiency, provided that before any such order is issued, the procedure laid down in the Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeals) rules, 1956, shall be followed". ( 26 ) THE provision authorises the competent authority to dismiss or remove any government servant from government service or may retire him compulsorily on the ground of misconduct of insolvency or inefficiency. ( 26 ) THE provision authorises the competent authority to dismiss or remove any government servant from government service or may retire him compulsorily on the ground of misconduct of insolvency or inefficiency. in my opinion, the respondent-university could not have made use of this provision, since the accusation made against the petitioner in the show-cause notice does not pertain to the misconduct of insolvency or inefficiency. Therefore, even the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. ( 27 ) LASTLY, i come to the last claim of the petitioner which deserves consideration is the prayer for awarding costs. The respondents' learned counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner for awarding costs. In the instant case, a member of highly respected profession is found guilty of misconduct on an unsupported allegations. By this process, the personal and professional reputation, which in my opinion, is most valuable possession of an officer is tarnished and damaged. It is difficult to erase the stigma cast on his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blase attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a man's professional reputation is still his most valuable pride. Even, if i award tons of money as costs, i do not think that i will be in a position to wipe away the trauma caused to the delinquent official and his family members, but only thing that I can do is to compensate the necessary expenses incurred by him on this unnecessary litigation. Taking into consideration all these facts and the professional fee that the petitioner has incurred, i consider it to be appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs. ( 28 ) IN the result, writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders made by the respondent-university dated 9-2-1998 and the endorsement issued by the administrative officer of the university dated 3-4-1998. Are quashed. The respondent-university is directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner towards litigation expenses. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if they so desire, only in accordance with law from the stage the defects are noticed by this court. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .