Judgment :- This is a classic example of exercise of authority which is not there and that too, in a most reprehensible manner. 2. Petitioner herein was appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the year 1968 and subsequently he was appointed as the Head of the Department of Mathematics in the year 1990. The institution, where the petitioner is working, enjoys the exalted status of a “Deemed University”. It seems that being the Syndicate Member, petitioner developed certain differences of opinion probably against the respondents and made complaints to some authorities and an enquiry was, therefore, instituted against the petitioner. So far so good. The enquiry, though instituted in the year 1995, has not proceeded even an inch. However, on 25-9-1995, a very strange order came to be passed against the petitioner, which is impugned herein. In that order, the Registrar of the University suggests that the petitioner had indulged in anti-institute activities by lodging a complaint with the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai about an amendment in the Memorandum of Association though the amendment was legally passed by the Senate in its meeting held on 8-4-1989 and approved by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of Government of India and duly registered in the office of the Registrar of Societies, Dindigul. In this communication, it is further pointed out that at the time of making the complaint, the petitioner was not a Member of the Senate nor was a party but still he lodged the complaint stating that the amendment was fake and was not passed which had resulted in cancellation of a legally valid amendment which was passed by the Senate in its wisdom keeping the interests of the institution in mind. The communication further goes on to suggest that the petitioner was directed as per the Syndicate resolution to step down from the Headship of the Department of Mathematics with immediate effect. Needless to mention that the petitioner rushed to this Court. This Court granted the interim relief by staying the operation and effect of this communication and that is how the matter has come before me today. 3. It is not known as to under what circumstances such a strange order came to be passed or such a resolution came to be passed by the Syndicate. This Court granted the interim relief by staying the operation and effect of this communication and that is how the matter has come before me today. 3. It is not known as to under what circumstances such a strange order came to be passed or such a resolution came to be passed by the Syndicate. If the petitioner’s complaint had irked the University generally and the Syndicate particularly or for that matter some other authority then, a departmental enquiry should have proceeded. It must be mentioned here that this Court had not stayed the institution of the departmental enquiry. The Court has merely stayed the operation and effect of the impugned communication dated 25-9-1995. The University did not, even during the pendency of this writ petition, choose to proceed with the enquiry. However, merely because an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner, there was no rationale in asking him to step down from the Headship of the Mathematics Department. 4. Learned counsel for the University says that this caused no prejudice to the petitioner as this did not amount to his reversion in any manner; no did it affect his pay structure also. I fail to understand this argument. If the petitioner, who is working as the Head of the Department for five years uninterruptedly and without any blemish, is asked suddenly to step down from the Headship, it would certainly be disastrous to his reputation among his colleagues and the student community as well as to his psyche. The impugned order does not show as to under what provision of law, if any, as this order been passed. The order is patently arbitrary and in the first place it amounts to pre-judging the issue involved in the pending departmental enquiry. The resolution, in pursuance of which, the impugned order has come to be passed, is worded as follows: “Considered and resolved to withdraw the Headship of the Department of Mathematics from Dr. S. Sivaraman, Professor of Mathematics. Shri B. Vasudevan’s dissent on this item is recorded. Necessary orders will be issued. Further the members were informed that the enquiry initiated on the charge memo issued to him will be expedited.”This seems to have been done in the meeting dated 9-9-1995. The University then took sixteen full days to issue the order. S. Sivaraman, Professor of Mathematics. Shri B. Vasudevan’s dissent on this item is recorded. Necessary orders will be issued. Further the members were informed that the enquiry initiated on the charge memo issued to him will be expedited.”This seems to have been done in the meeting dated 9-9-1995. The University then took sixteen full days to issue the order. I am afraid even the enquiry could have been completed in these sixteen days but even that was not done and a bald order like the impugned communication came to be issued in the nature of a punitive order without hearing the petitioner. The order is a nullity since the petitioner has not been heard and since the order amounts to a punitive order, affecting the petitioner’s status. The order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent University is free to proceed with the enquiry. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.24663 and 22798 of 1995 are closed.