JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Anil Kumar was Laboratory Attendant in the department of Microbiology of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as "HAU Hisar) appointed vide letter dated 5.5.1977. He joined duty on 5.5.1977. He was charge sheeted on 21/22.11.1984 by the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar. He was also charge sheeted by the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology vide letter dated 29.9.1984 on the same allegations. He submitted reply to the appropriate authority. He was removed by the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar on 18.11.1985 from the service of the University. He was conveyed the order of his removal from service vide endorsement No. DR/G1/85/PF/4051-54 dated 18.11.1985. He filed appeal against the order of his removal from service dated 18.11.1985, which was rejected by the Vice Chancellor, HAU Hisar. By means of suit for declaration the plaintiff has challenged the order of his removal from service and also the rejection of his appeal against the order removing him from service saying that he was charge sheeted by the two authorities. He could not have been charge sheeted on the same allegations by the two authorities. He was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. Charge sheet was illegal and the subsequent proceedings including the holding of enquiry and the passing of order of removal were also illegal. Baseless and false charges were levelled against him with a pre-determined mind to save others and to remove him from service. He was called by the Professor and Head Department of Microbiology on 29.9.1984 at 2.30 P.M. to discuss departmental matters in which the alleged charges were discussed and on the other hand the same person had asked his explanation on the same day with the allegations that the incident had been seen by him at 4.40 P.M. on 28.9.1984. From this fact, what emerges is that the charges were concocted and they had been trumped up and inquiry was a ritual intended to lend colour of legality to the order of his removal from service. Removal order was the result of pre-determined mind of the authority. This fact would be apparent from the perusal of letter bearing No. DR(G-1)/85/6730-31, in which the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar had proposed to terminate the services of the plaintiff only on the basis of the reply of the plaintiff without holding any enquiry. Removal order was the result of pre-determined mind of the authority. This fact would be apparent from the perusal of letter bearing No. DR(G-1)/85/6730-31, in which the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar had proposed to terminate the services of the plaintiff only on the basis of the reply of the plaintiff without holding any enquiry. What was the necessity of holding enquiry when the Director of Research had a pre-determined mind to terminate his services. Procedure adopted in the conduct of enquiry was unknown to law. Enquiry Officer did not consider the fact that no material was placed before him from which he could draw inference viz he was at fault. Enquiry Committee was not constituted by the competent authority and on the basis of the report of such Enquiry Committee, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was against law. No opportunity was given to him to rebut the charges. Order of removal was passed on fact finding enquiry. Order of removal was passed in a mechanical way without considering the evidence and with pre-determined mind. Vice Chancellor did not consider at all his appeal and no order was conveyed to him by the Vice Chancellor only. Additional Director of Research, "HAU Hisar informed him that his appeal had been considered and rejected. Order of removal contravenes the principles of natural justice. It was prayed that it be declared that the order of removal dated 18.11.1985 passed by the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar was illegal, against law and fact, malafide having no effect on his rights and that he be deemed always to have been in the service of the University since the date of his appointment without any break and that he was entitled to all the benefits towards pay and allowances etc. with effect from the date he was removed from the service. It was also prayed that the order of Vice Chancellor rejecting his appeal was also illegal. 2. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that "HAU Hisar is not a "State" nor it is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such he is not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. There was simple relationship of master and servant between him and "HAU Hisar. Only suit for damages was maintainable, if his feeling was that he had been unduly weeded out of service. As such he is not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. There was simple relationship of master and servant between him and "HAU Hisar. Only suit for damages was maintainable, if his feeling was that he had been unduly weeded out of service. He could not claim reinstatement into service with back wages. It was urged that he was rightly charge sheeted. He was rightly removed from service. His removal from service was quite legal, just and proper and the rejection of his appeal by the Vice Chancellor was equally legal, just and proper and according to the rules and statute of "HAU Hisar. Assuming that charge sheet issued by the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar was not in order, there was no illegality in the charge sheet issued to him by the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology on the same allegations. Fact finding report was not required to be supplied to the delinquent. It was denied that the charges were framed up with a pre-determined mind to remove him from service. Enquiry was conducted according to rules and statute of "HAU Hisar. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the order dated 18.11.1985 whereby the services of the plaintiff have been terminated is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Relief. 4. Vide order dated 30.3.1991, Senior Sub Judge, Hisar dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his finding that his removal from service was quite in order. Every opportunity was given to him to explain away his conduct. His explanation was not found satisfactory. Fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee and he was asked to inspect all the relevant record. He joined the proceedings and submitted his reply to the charge sheet. In the enquiry conducted by Shri O.P. Srivastva, he was asked to appear on 6.5.1985. He did not appear. He was again called on 18.5.1985. Fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee and he was asked to inspect all the relevant record. He joined the proceedings and submitted his reply to the charge sheet. In the enquiry conducted by Shri O.P. Srivastva, he was asked to appear on 6.5.1985. He did not appear. He was again called on 18.5.1985. He was asked about the summary of his statement given before the Enquiry Officer. Defendant proved photocopy of application Ex. D-5 dated 29.9.1984 submitted by him himself and another application Ex. D-9 submitted by him in which he admitted the incident. He was allowed to inspect the file. No suggestion was given by the plaintiff to the members of the fact finding committee that reasonable opportunity had not been given to him. It was found that in these circumstances when he had himself admitted the incident, he could have been removed from service even without enquiry. 5. Not satisfied with the dismissal of his suit by Senior Sub Judge, Hisar vide order dated 30.3.1991, the plaintiff went in appeal. Additional District Judge, Hisar, accepted the appeal vide order dated 4.9.1993 and decreed his suit and set aside the order removing him from service and also declared that he will be entitled to all benefits towards pay and allowances etc. and that he shall always be deemed to be in the service of the University as if he had never been removed therefrom. 6. Not satisfied with the acceptance of the appeal of the plaintiff by Additional District Judge, Hisar, "HAU and the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar have come up in appeal to this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Allegation against the plaintiff was that on 28.9.1984 at about 4.49 p.m. when the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, "HAU Hisar was leaving the office, he saw that a fan in Lab. No. 217 was on. He asked one Shri Sahi Ram to open the Lab and put the fan off. Shri Ram opened the Lab and told him that some students were inside. To the surprise of the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, he found that one boy and one girl, who were not students of this University, were inside. No. 217 was on. He asked one Shri Sahi Ram to open the Lab and put the fan off. Shri Ram opened the Lab and told him that some students were inside. To the surprise of the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, he found that one boy and one girl, who were not students of this University, were inside. That boy and that girl told the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, "HAU Hisar that they had been locked inside by the plaintiff, who was Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Microbiology, "HAU Hisar. It was viewed as a serious matter. Plaintiff was called upon to explain his conduct vide letter No. Micro. 4637 dated 29.9.1984. He gave his explanation which was not found satisfactory. Enquiry Committee found that he had deliberately locked the boy and the girl inside the Lab even though the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology was present across the room and that he had called the boy and the girl. Before charge sheeting him, fact finding enquiry was instituted vide No. Micro.84/4648/50 dated 29.9.1984. Enquiry Committee concluded that the plaintiff had locked the Lab with malafide intention perhaps with the consent of the boy and the girl. He had done this act in a departmental Laboratory of which he had the key knowing well that the Head of the Department was in his office at that time. He offered explanation as to the happening on 29.9.1984 admitting that the boy and the girl had been locked in the Lab. He also gave writing confessing viz. he had committed an act of foolishness. He had done so out of sheer fun. Dr. O.P. Srivastva, Professor and Head, Department of Mathematics & Statistics, "HAU Hisar, who was appointed Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 24.5.1986 came to the conclusion that it had not been possible for him to find any point which could go against the findings of the Enquiry Committee constituted within the department. After going through the letter dated 29.9.1984 from the Professor and Head, department of Microbiology "HAU Hisar, the explanation offered by Anil Kumar immediately after the incident, the report of the fact finding committee in connection with the incident, the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Director of Research agreed with the conclusion drawn and held that the charge sheet against Anil Kumar stood proved. He became provisionally of the view that the penalty of removal from service of the University, which wont disqualify him from future employment should be imposed upon him. A show cause notice was also served upon said Shri Anil Kumar vide No. DR/G1/85/29104-106 dated 24.7.1985. Instead of replying to the show cause notice he sent letter asking for a copy of the summary statement attached with the report of the Enquiry officer, which had not been supplied to him alongwith other copies of the documents. Photostat copy of the requisite summary statement alongwith the attested copy of Memo No. 3020 dated 19.6.1985 from the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology were also supplied to him. Instead of replying to the show cause notice, he moved an application for the supply of other documents. In a way he did not want to give reply to the show cause notice and it was felt that he was prolonging the case with malafide intention. A fact finding committee consisting of Dr. P. Tauro, Chairman; Dr. K. Lakshminarayana and Dr. R.C. Dogra was constituted to investigate the matter. The report of the fact finding Committee revealed that a young boy named Shri Goswami had fixed the time and place around 4.00 P.M. on 28.9.1984 to meet Shri Anil Kumar and also Miss Kanu Priya. Shri Anil Kumar locked the boy and the girl inside the Lab with malafide intention and with the consent of the boy and the girl perhaps for sexual purpose. 9. Shri Anil Kumar had confessed that the girl Miss Kanu Priya student of the College of Home Science had approached him around 3.00 p.m. and enquired him about Mr. Goswami, a city resident studying at the TV Centre near the Gandhi booth. Later around 4.10 p.m. both Ms. Kanu Priya and Mr. Goswami came to the Lab. No. 217 requesting for drinking water. He provided them with water and later asked them to go. Since the boy and the girl refused to leave immediately on his request, he locked the room from outside at 4.20 p.m. and left the place. While he locked the Lab door with the key which he had, which earlier he had denied to possess, Dr. Mishra, Head of the Department was seated in his room across the Laboratory. Since the boy and the girl refused to leave immediately on his request, he locked the room from outside at 4.20 p.m. and left the place. While he locked the Lab door with the key which he had, which earlier he had denied to possess, Dr. Mishra, Head of the Department was seated in his room across the Laboratory. Enquiry Committee found that Shri Anil Kumar instead of informing the Head of the Department about the said boy and the girl refusing to leave the Lab. locked them inside and left the spot. It was also disclosed by Shri Anil Kumar that Mr. Goswami had earlier fixed an appointment to meet him around 4.30 p.m. near the college. Shri Anil Kumar gave his version to the Enquiry Committee. He said that he had locked the boy and the girl inside the Lab only for mere fun and he was to come later and open the door. What more was needed when the plaintiff himself admitted that he had locked the boy and the girl. By locking young boy and the girl in the Lab. of the Microbiology department of "HAU Hisar, Anil Kumar brought bad name to the University. What is viewed by the people that the University was being used by young boys and girls for satisfaction of their sexual lust. Plaintiff did not give reply to the show cause notice proposing penalty of removal from service upon him, as per clause 12f of the statute in Chapter VI of "HAU. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the holding of enquiry. The plaintiff was called upon to explain his conduct. His explanation was not found satisfactory. Enquiry Committee found him guilty. Report of the Enquiry Committee was accepted by the Director of Research, "HAU Hisar. 11. In this case there has been no violation of any rule or principle of natural justice. On the basis of prima facie charge, enquiry was conducted. The Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology asked for his explanation as to why action be not taken against him for gross indiscipline. He submitted explanation which was found unsatisfactory and thus a preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which also he was found guilty. On the allegation that he locked young boy and girl inside the Lab. The Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology asked for his explanation as to why action be not taken against him for gross indiscipline. He submitted explanation which was found unsatisfactory and thus a preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which also he was found guilty. On the allegation that he locked young boy and girl inside the Lab. he was charge sheeted. He submitted reply to the charge sheet which was found to be unsatisfactory and the enquiry was conducted by Dr. O.P. Srivastva, Professor and Head of the department of Mathematics and Statistics, who held the charge as proved. Then he was given another opportunity vide memo dated 24.7.1985 and was asked to make representation within 15 days. It is after considering his explanation that the order of termination was passed against him. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent was punished on the basis of the findings recorded in the preliminary inquiry. After preliminary inquiry, no regular inquiry was conducted. It was submitted that if there had been regular inquiry, the delinquent could have proved his innocence. He could have proved that he innocently locked the Lab. when boy and girl were inside. It was submitted that there was failure of justice to the delinquent who should not have been thrown out of job without affording him opportunity of proving his innocence in the regular inquiry. It was submitted that the preliminary inquiry report which was the basis of the finding of guilt against the delinquent had to be supplied to him so that he could properly defend himself. It was submitted that non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report to the delinquent has certainly prejudiced his defence and the whole inquiry proceedings are liable to be set aside on this point alone. In support of this submission. he drew my attention to Hans Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) SLR 146 where it was held that the person who held the preliminary inquiry deputed some third person to do the investigation and he recorded the statements of persons, the said person never appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiry, amounts to violation of rules of natural justice. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that there was no necessity of conducting regular inquiry into the misconduct imputed to the delinquent when he himself had admitted the misconduct imputed to him. He had given an application to the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, HAU, Hisar in which he had stated that he had committed this mistake in fun and he was feeling repentant. He was not aware of the consequences which could ensue nor did he intend that the University should be put to disrepute. It was submitted that in the face of the admission of misconduct by Anil Kumar delinquent, there was no occasion for regular inquiry. It was submitted that what would have happened if there had been regular inquiry into his conduct. If there had been regular inquiry also, this admission would have been there. It was submitted that suitable punishment could be imposed upon him on the basis of the evidence recorded against him in the preliminary inquiry. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that admission could have been taken as a whole. Disciplinary authority could not have used that part of admission which goes against him and ignore that part of admission which detracts from his guilt. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. The State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), AIR 1961 SC 1070 wherein it was held that it is of utmost importance that in taking disciplinary action against a public servant a proper departmental inquiry must be held against him after supplying him with a charge sheet and he must be allowed reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission, it is open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admission without holding a final inquiry as required by the rules. 15. In this case, no regular inquiry was needed when he had admitted his guilt through making applications Ex. D-5 and Ex. D-9. In this case, the fact remains that he allowed laboratory to be used by a young boy and a young girl who were not related to each other and who had come there ostensibly to be in each others company for some time. D-5 and Ex. D-9. In this case, the fact remains that he allowed laboratory to be used by a young boy and a young girl who were not related to each other and who had come there ostensibly to be in each others company for some time. After the preliminary inquiry, the plaintiff was charge sheeted. He gave reply to the charge sheet which was not found satisfactory. Show cause notice was served upon him. Absence of regular inquiry has not caused any prejudice to the delinquent when the delinquent himself had admitted this fact that he had locked the boy and the girl inside the lab. knowing full well that they were strangers. In this case, deterrent punishment was called for because the presence of the boy and the girl, who were strangers to each other, inside the lab. which was locked by the delinquent could give rise to some undesirable act on their part which would have brought HAU to ignominy and disrepute. HAU is a place of learning. Parents send their children to the universities so that they learn. They do not want these places to be meeting places for lovers. 16. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Dr. O.P. Srivastva did not record any evidence in the enquiry. He acted on the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted by him consisting of Dr. P. Tauro, Chairman, Dr. K. Lakshminarayana, Dr. R.C. Dogra. It was submitted that Dr. O.P. Srivastva should have recorded the statements of Sahi Ram etc. Suffice it to say when Shri Anil Kumar had himself admitted that he had locked young boy and girl in the Laboratory, what more was required to be done. If he wanted, he could lead evidence to prove his innocence. In departmental enquiries all that has to be seen is that there should be no violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. For the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar are set aside and those passed by Senior Sub Judge, Hisar are restored. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.