JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE R.G., J.:---The petitioner, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (now retired) approached through this petition before this Court, challenging the action of the respondent-university, whereby the respondent, by its order dated May 25, 1987, directed to recover an amount of Rs. 24,383,33/- from the petitioner, on the allegations that the petitioner did misappropriate that much amount in the alleged deal with regard to purchase of Video Tape Recorder for the purposes of university. Alongwith the petitioner, the then Vice Chancellor Dr. Gopalkrishna of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, and one Dr. Saigaonkar, were also made liable to make good of the loss alleged to have been caused to the respondent-university. 2. The facts, which are just relevant and necessary for the purposes of the present decision, are as under: After the formation of an Agriculture University in the State of Maharashtra, i.e. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, in the year 1970, the petitioner, who was working in Nagpur Veterinary College at Nagpur, then became employee of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, to which Veterinary college was attached to at Nagpur, was taken over by Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth. Needless to mention that Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth came into existence in pursuance of Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1968. Suffice it is to say that in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, the petitioner became the employee of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, and to be precise, in pursuance of section 53-A of that Act. The petitioner since thereafter was governed by the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner retired from service of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth on superannuation on July 31, 1986. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was holding the post of Professor of Pharmacology. 3. It appears that there were certain matters, in which university was of the opinion that certain enquiry was necessary as regards the conduct, the working method of its employees in various departments, as certain serious allegations were made against various officers of the University and the employees, and therefore, the Chancellor of the University appointed one-man Enquiry Committee, which was manned by Shri D.B. Padhye (Retired High Court Judge). The Committee enquired into various matters including the present one, with which we are concerned in this petition. The Committee enquired into various matters including the present one, with which we are concerned in this petition. Before the Enquiry Committee, Enquiry Case No. 2 was conducted on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Oley against the present petitioner Dr. M.K. Joshirao and Shri Gopalkrishna, the then Vice-Chancellor of the university. This was a joint complaint against the two. This complaint related to a transaction of purchase of one "Akai Video Tape Recorder" from M/s. D.R. Enterprises, Bombay. The allegation was that the present petitioner Dr. Joshirao, as an Associate Dean of Pharmacology was concerned with the transaction for purchase of this Video Tape Recorder. As per the complaint, the deal of purchase of this Video Tape Recorded was suspicious and this suspicion in the mind of the complainant-Shri Oley, was on the basis that the deal which was effected was not in proper form and that the deal was not entered into on the basis of proper calling the quotations and further that the quotations which were alleged to have been obtained, were called subsequent to the transaction. It was also a complaint by Shri Oley that same dealer had given two quotations at two different times and that the correspondence in this respect was not entered into appropriately in Inward and Outward Registers. In addition to these allegations, there was also a charge of having caused unnecessary monetary loss to the to the university, extent of Rs. 2325/- by making excess payment towards Sales tax department, though the concession forms were already delivered to the firms from whom the purchases were made. Even the charge as regards not following proper procedure in this deal, as also of not obtaining necessary certificate of "No Import Duty" were also levelled against the petitioner delinquent. It is also alleged that the purchase was made at a much higher price, when the same was available at a lower price. 4. The One-man Enquiry Committee, referred to above, conducted a thorough enquiry; recorded statements of various officers concerned, including the persons, those who had a direct connection with this deal, either in approving the same, or sanctioning the same, and even by visiting the dealer's shop at Bombay, inspecting of the machinery/equipment; witnessing the demonstrations and other allied activities which were required to be done for completion of the aforesaid deal. 5. 5. We do not find it appropriate, at this stage, to go into details about the very many witnesses who were examined before the Enquiry Committee and their depositions recorded during the course of enquiry, as in our opinion, the relevant observations made by the Enquiry Officer, are sufficient to indicate that the present petitioner or for that purpose, even other two persons, who were charged alongwith the petitioner, i.e. Dr. Gopalkrishna, the then Vice Chancellor and Dr. Saigaonkar, who accompanied the Vice-Chancellor petitioner for completing the deal and doing very many activities in that respect, could not be said to be involved in any illegal activity much less misappropriation of any amount, as alleged against the petitioner. 6. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, and to be precise, on the basis of some stray sentences therein, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated February 10, 1987. The subject of the show cause notice was implementation of the recommendations made by one-man Enquiry Committee, presided over by Shri D.B. Padhye, Retd. High Court Judge, and by this show cause notice the petitioner and Shri Saigaonkar were asked to give their explanation or to show cause as to why the amount should not be recovered from each of them, as referred to in the show cause notice for the loss suffered by the respondent-university, which was caused because of the misappropriation of funds of the university, as the notices were found responsible for the misappropriation of the alleged amount shown against their names, which is Rs. 24,383.32 ps. each. The petitioner was also made aware that if the petitioner failed to submit his explanation within fifteen days from receipt of the show cause notice, then it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say about the same and necessary proceedings for recovery would be initiated against the notices. The show cause notice was issued by the Vice Chancellor, Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, under his signature. The petitioner had duly replied the show cause notice by his reply dated February 21, 1987, refuting all the charges levelled against him and further specifically pointed out that he did not commit any financial irregularities, much less misappropriation referred to in the show cause notice and he politely requested the authorities concerned to withdraw the said show cause notice. The petitioner had duly replied the show cause notice by his reply dated February 21, 1987, refuting all the charges levelled against him and further specifically pointed out that he did not commit any financial irregularities, much less misappropriation referred to in the show cause notice and he politely requested the authorities concerned to withdraw the said show cause notice. It is absolutely clear that if the petitioner was guilty, then there was no question of any sort of torture to the petitioner including that of mental torture or stigma against his career, but, if the charges levelled against the petitioner much less of misappropriation, were not proved, then it was bound to have a severe adverse effect on the entire service career of the petitioner, a stigma throughout his life, in addition to great mental torture and humiliation. 7. However, it is clear that in spite of the request of the petitioner through his reply dated February 21, 1987 the show cause notice was not withdrawn by the authorities concerned and the respondent-university proceeded with the recovery of the amount from the petitioner. 8. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent university, stated before us that Shri Saigaonkar, one of the delinquents, did deposit the amount. However, the learned Counsel was not in a position to state as to whether the amount has been recovered from Dr. Gopalkrishna, the then Vice-Chancellor. So far as regards the present petitioner is concerned, the petitioner as aforesaid, approached this Court by filing the present petition and this Court admitted the petition on 30th June, 1987 and further stayed the recovery against the petitioner on petitioner's giving solvent security to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel, submits that the petitioner did give necessary security as per the orders of this Court and hence recovery is not made from the petitioner. 9. It is the grievance made by the petitioner before this Court through the petition that the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, could be held responsible for the alleged loss caused to the university in the transaction of purchase of Video Tape Recorder. Mrs. 9. It is the grievance made by the petitioner before this Court through the petition that the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, could be held responsible for the alleged loss caused to the university in the transaction of purchase of Video Tape Recorder. Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel, took us through the report of the Enquiry Committee and specifically pointed out from that report that it was not the petitioner alone, but the then Vice Chancellor Shri Gopalkrishna, alongwith this petitioner, had gone to Bombay and both being the authorities in the university, who were worried about the university progress and bringing it up-to-date, thought it appropriate to purchase the said machine/equipment with the sole intention to facilitate proper ways of imparting instructions to the students of the university. It is clear that at the relevant time, the said machine then appeared to have been recently introduced in the market and in the country and naturally, the Vice- Chancellor and the petitioner thought it appropriate to purchase the said machine, as it was considered to be latest useful instrument for imparting education to the students of the university. The model which was to be purchased was "Akai Imported Unit Model V.T.-110". The same was purchased in the month of December, 1973 and that too only after the demonstration thereof was given at Nagpur by the company representative itself. The said demonstration was given in the university, which was appreciated by each and one and ultimately such a sophiscated machine/equipment was decided to be purchased. One Shri Saigaonkar, whose name appeared in the show cause notice, and who also was charged alongwith the petitioner, was then in-charge of the Extension work and one another employee of the university-Shri Ahmed, since had shown considerable interest and knowledge of such complicated and sophiscated machinery, were also sent for training of operation and handling of the said equipment. In short, the transaction was finalised and machinery was purchased at the costs of Rs. 75,000/-. It is also clear from the Enquiry Committee report that after the machinery was brought at Nagpur, the same did not function/operate properly and naturally the same was required to be sent back for carrying out necessary repairs. Shri Saigaonkar, had gone to Bombay with the equipment and also for getting further necessary instructions as regards its operation and handling. He was accompanied by Shri Ahmed, as mentioned above. Shri Saigaonkar, had gone to Bombay with the equipment and also for getting further necessary instructions as regards its operation and handling. He was accompanied by Shri Ahmed, as mentioned above. As regards purchase of the machine, Dr. Gopalkrishna, the then Vice-Chancellor also stated before the Enquiry Committee about the happenings in the matter, which was in no way different than what Dr. Joshirao had mentioned before the Enquiry Committee. In his Enquiry Report, it is specifically pointed out by the Enquiry Officer that he did not find any fault either with Shri Gopalkrishna or Dr. Joshirao, going ahead for the purchase of Video Tape Recorder. It is further specifically observed in the Enquiry Report that the Video Tape Recorder which was purchased, however, failed in achieving the object for which it was purchased and the Video Tape Recorder could not be put in use even for a single day. In short, the observation in the Enquiry Report is that huge amount of Rs. 75,000/- had gone waste. Certain efforts appear to have made to set right the machine, however, the same proved futile. It was, therefore, suggested in the Enquiry Report that such machine should have been disposed of by selling the same and recover the amount, whatsoever, could have been recovered. However, pertinent to note is, nowhere in it's report the Enquiry Commissioner observed that it was a case of "misappropriation" on the part of any of the officers of the university much less the Vice-Chancellor or the present petitioner Dr. Joshirao. 10. In spite of there being no such conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Commission, surprisingly, the respondent university issued the show cause notice, dated February 10, 1987, referred to above, and in the show cause notice it was stated that : ".......In accordance with this directive, the above referred one man Enquiry Committee after having made full and detailed enquiry has come to the conclusion that you are responsible for the following financial misappropriation :--- (I) In respect of purchase of AKAI-VIDEO Tape Recorder. On the basis of above conclusion, the Chancellor had again appointed another Committee to find out as to what exact amount would be recoverable from each of you on account of the loss suffered by the Vidyapeeth caused by the misappropriation of funds of the University and whereas it has been found that you each one are responsible for the misappropriation of the amount shown as under." 11. Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel, scathingly assailed, and in our opinion rightly, that the Enquiry Report does not make a reference as regard any alleged misappropriation. Mrs. Sirpurkar, further contended that there may be a case of wrong decision as regards quality of the instrument/equipment; there may be a wrong judgment as regards purchase of that particular piece of equipment. However, according to Mrs. Sirpurkar, by no stretch of imagination, this could not be a case, of misappropriation much less as alleged in the show cause notice. We see substance in the arguments advanced by Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. With the help of learned Advocates on both the sides, we have thoroughly gone through the report of the Enquiry Committee, and in our opinion also, it is no where suggested in that Enquiry Report that it could be a case of misappropriation or embezzlement. In the Enquiry Report it was also suggested that if the machine was not of any help or use for the department of the university, then at least same should have been disposed of and substantial part of the amounts spent, could have been retrieved and the loss which was caused to some extent could have been made good. In paragraph 365 of the Enquiry Report it was observed thus: "......To a certain extent, therefore, all the persons, who had hand in purchasing the machinery and who were to work the machinery and see that the machinery is in use, are all responsible and cannot shift the liability from one to the other and deal with the matter as if it is nobody's property." 12. Thus, in our opinion, it is clear that for the deal in question, the officers concerned may be responsible. They may be even responsible for not having spent money on a right item or on a right piece of machine. Thus, in our opinion, it is clear that for the deal in question, the officers concerned may be responsible. They may be even responsible for not having spent money on a right item or on a right piece of machine. However, in our opinion, the observations made in the Enquiry Report totally fall short to draw an inference that it could be a case of misappropriation, as alleged in the show cause notice, and as is attempted to be recovered from the petitioner. 13. Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel, further contended that so far as regards the petitioner is concerned, he was renowed personality in the university, highly educated and qualified person, who had even held the post of Professor of the University and it was impossible to sustain such a charge of misappropriation against such a revered and renowed personality in the university. Mrs. Sirpurkar, also stated that, if it would have been a matter of simply recovery of amount for any wrong decision, the petitioner would not have made a point of prestige, however, since the charge of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner puts a stigma on his character and career, who till then had absolutely unblemished service record, this is something more than the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner, which caused unforeseen damage to his status in the society and the insult which could not be weighed with in any balance. So far as this argument of Mrs. Sirpurkar is concerned, we see that though in the eye of law, much importance cannot be given to the same, however the fact remains that the same cannot be so lightly brushed aside. 14. After having gone through the record, as also after having heard Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent university, at length, in our opinion also, this cannot be a case of misappropriation at all. 15. The word "misappropriation" which is severely damaging, appears to have been very lightly used by the respondent university in the show cause notice, without understanding the implications thereof. If we go through the dictionary meanings of the word "misappropriation", it definitely indicates that it is virtually a stinger and by levelling the charge of misappropriation, career of a person can be totally ruined. 16. The word "misappropriate" as stated in Chambers 20th Dictionary means to put to a wrong use or to take dishonestly for oneself. If we go through the dictionary meanings of the word "misappropriation", it definitely indicates that it is virtually a stinger and by levelling the charge of misappropriation, career of a person can be totally ruined. 16. The word "misappropriate" as stated in Chambers 20th Dictionary means to put to a wrong use or to take dishonestly for oneself. In the instant matter, the decision was not taken by Dr. Joshirao to purchase the V.C.R., but it was a decision by the High Officials of the university and there was no question of misappropriation of that amount which was to be spent on that machine, nor was the property itself in any manner misappropriated. There did not appear to be any dishonest initiation in the deal, though there may be a wrong decision, as stated earlier in selecting the particular piece. It is not seen from the report of the Enquiry Committee that the learned Commissioner had any doubt about bona fides in the transaction or that the persons involved therein wanted to misappropriate the amount sanctioned for that purchase. It is also not stated anywhere in the report that such a property was not at all purchased or that the property was purchased at a lesser value than what actually is said to have paid to the company from which it was purchased. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for the Court to digest this idea of levelling a charge of misappropriation against the delinquent. 17. We have also seen that in so many words it is stated in the Enquiry Report that no evidence was brought on record to indicate that there was any underhand dealing in the transaction and that any one of them had received kickback. 18. If at all, according to the university, it was a case of misappropriation, then taking into consideration the status of the petitioner as also other two persons, who were involved, i.e. Dr. Gopalkrishna, the then Vice Chancellor, and Mr. Saigaonkar, they could have been conveniently proceeded against for the offence punishable under section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code is about criminal misappropriation of property. Gopalkrishna, the then Vice Chancellor, and Mr. Saigaonkar, they could have been conveniently proceeded against for the offence punishable under section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code is about criminal misappropriation of property. In the instant matter, it could have been said that these persons were trustees of the property and money of the university and since they had dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to their own use or benefit and that the property being a moveable property, then it was not difficult for the university to have proceeded against these persons and prosecuted them. However, the university appears to have not chosen that path, must be, the university was also aware that this could be a case of misappropriation at all. We really surprised to see as to how the university, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee, has reached to the conclusion that it was a case of misappropriation, when there was not even slightest indication to that effect in the Enquiry Report. It is also clear from the record that the machine was purchased and was even brought to the university, and as is gathered from the record, the same was lying in the university. In such circumstances, the question of any misappropriation, in our view, does not arise. 19. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this cannot be a case of misappropriation and recovery of the amount on the basis of such a show cause notice of misappropriation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We, therefore, have no slightest hesitation in mind to quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 10th February, 1987, as also the order of recovery dated 25th May, 1987, issued by the respondent-university. 20. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the abovesaid terms with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Needless to mention that the bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of this Court, shall stand discharged. Petition allowed. -----