M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned resolution dated 23. 11. 2001, annexure-18 to the writ petition, termination order dated 27. 11. 2001, Annexure-19 to the writ petition and the order of the Chancellor dated 19. 4. 2002, Annexure-23 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director in Regional Extension Service Centre (Rice milling) vide appointment letter dated 18. 12. 1978. He was subsequently selected and appointed as Joint Director (Rice Milling) under the Scheme of Regional Extension Service Centre (Rice milling) of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the University), vide order dated 12. 7. 1984. On abolition of the regional Extension Service Centre, the petitioner was adjusted/absorbed against the vacant post of Research Engineer in the Department of Agricultural Engineering at Kanpur vide order dated 8. 8. 1996, Annexure-1. By the order dated 14. 8. 1996 of the University, the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer of the Agriculture Engineering College, Etawah and by order dated 24. 9. 1996, the petitioner and the Dean of Veterinary College were given the same administrative and other powers as that of Project Officer. By order dated 9. 1. 1997 the petitioner was appointed as Incharge of the Agriculture Engineering Department of the University. The Board of management of the University in its meeting held on 28. 1. 2000 appointed the petitioner in agriculture Engineering College, Etawah. ( 4 ) IN para 8 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 29. 8. 2000 to the chief Personal Officer mentioning various irregularities in advertisement No. 2/2000. He also applied for the post of Dean and for quashing the advertisement No. 2 of 2000. In pursuance of the representation of the petitioner, the Additional Legal Advisor of the Chancellor issued a direction to the Vice Chancellor vide letter dated 29. 11. 2000. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that instead of taking any action in accordance with the direction of the Chancellor, the vice Chancellor had cancelled the application of the petitioner. 11. 2000. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that instead of taking any action in accordance with the direction of the Chancellor, the vice Chancellor had cancelled the application of the petitioner. It is alleged in para 11 of the petition that the advertisement was also against the rules and regulations of the University and hence the petitioner did not appear in the interview and made a representation under Section 23 of the Act to the Chancellor. It is alleged in para 12 of the writ petition that the Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the advertisement No. 2 of 2000 appointed the Dean of the Faculty against the rules and regulations, and therefore, the petitioner preferred a representation, dated 12. 1. 2001 under Section 23 of the Act before the Chancellor. In para 13 it is alleged that in view of the letter of the petitioner dated 29. 8. 2000 pointing out several irregularities, the Vice Chancellor of the University has become very annoyed with the petitioner and transferred him to Advance research and Training Centre, Etawah by means of order dated 21. 9. 2000. It is alleged that there is no such post where the petitioner could have been transferred. In compliance of the order of the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner joined at Etawah on 12. 10. 2000 and submitted joining report to the Vice Chancellor though there was no post at Etawah where the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner prayed that he may be transferred to Kanpur but to no avail. The petitioner made representation to the Chancellor for quashing the transfer order dated 21. 9. 2000 and posting the petitioner under the Dean by order dated 22. 3. 2001 but to no avail. The petitioner filed Writ petition No. 1194 of 2001 in this Court which was disposed of by order dated 4. 9. 2001 with the observation that the petitioner may make a representation. The petitioner wrote letter to the secretary, Agriculture, U. P. , for directing the Vice Chancellor to restrain the Dean from discharging any important and financial function and taking any decision. In para 27 of the petition it is stated that instead of taking any action the Vice Chancellor started harassing the petitioner. In para 24 it is stated that the Vice Chancellor has committed embezzlement and there are enquiries against him. In para 27 of the petition it is stated that instead of taking any action the Vice Chancellor started harassing the petitioner. In para 24 it is stated that the Vice Chancellor has committed embezzlement and there are enquiries against him. Hence, the petitioner made a detailed complaint to the State government and several other authorities, true copies of which are Annexures-3 and 4. He has also made representation to the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Secretary, Agriculture against the Vice Chancellor. In para 28 of the petition it is stated that feeling insult and humiliation, the vice Chancellor got a charge-sheet issued to the petitioner dated 14. 9. 2001 vide Annexure-5. In para 29 it is stated that the charge-sheet against the petitioner is incorrect. The petitioner sent a reply dated 24. 9. 2001 vide Annexure-6. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who asked the petitioner to submit a reply vide order dated 28. 9. 2001 Annexure-7. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Dean Faculty of Agriculture stating that the matter is pending before the Chancellor in compliance of the High Court order and, therefore, issuing of charge-sheet amounts to Contempt of Court. True copy of the letter dated 4. 10. 2001 is Annexure-8. In para 33 of the petition it is stated that the Enquiry Officer has no power to frame charges afresh against the petitioner. The petitioner asked for documents but it is alleged in para 34 of the petition that he was not provided the same. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 12. 10. 2001 making various allegations vide annexure-10. By letter dated 23. 10. 2001 and 30. 10. 2001, Annexures-11 and 12 the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the charges otherwise ex parte proceedings would be initiated. The petitioner sent a reply dated 3. 11. 2001 asking for certain documents and information vide annexure-13. In reply the inquiry Officer supplied some documents which were not relevant vide Annexure-14. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 8. 11. 2001 to the Enquiry Officer stating that enquiry should be done by some person who is not subordinate to the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner also sent a letter to the Board of Management requesting it to reconsider their decision vide Annexures-15 and 16. Without taking cognizance of the aforesaid letters of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer fixed 15. 11. 2001 for hearing vide Annexure-17. The petitioner also sent a letter to the Board of Management requesting it to reconsider their decision vide Annexures-15 and 16. Without taking cognizance of the aforesaid letters of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer fixed 15. 11. 2001 for hearing vide Annexure-17. It is alleged in para 42 of the petition that thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted in ex parte enquiry report without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In para 47 of the petition it is alleged that on receiving the enquiry report, the Vice Chancellor placed the report before the Board of management of the University on 23. 11. 2001 and a resolution was passed by the Board vide annexure-18. Thereafter the termination order dated 27. 11. 2001 was passed vide Annexure-19. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Act before the Chancellor. The petitioner made a representation to the chancellor which was rejected by order dated 19. 4. 2002, Annexure-23. It is alleged in para 44 of the petition that the petitioner has been dispossessed from his Bungalow. In para 50 of the petition it is stated that the action of the Vice Chancellor is mala fide. In para 51 of the petition it is alleged that there was total denial of opportunity to the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. It is stated that on 9. 11. 2001 the date fixed by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner became ill and, therefore, he could not attend the inquiry. However, he sent two applications dated 8. 11. 2001 to the Inquiry Officer and the Board. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer that the inquiry should not be fixed on 12, 13, 15 and 19 November, 2001, as he will be on leave on these dates but by letter dated 9. 11. 2001, the Enquiry Officer fixed 15. 11. 2001 for the enquiry. It is alleged that this letter was received by the petitioner after 20. 11. 2001 when he returned to Kanpur after availing leave. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer without examining any evidence submitted two ex parte reports. It is also alleged that copy of the reports were not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor has passed the impugned termination order against which representation has been rejected by the Chancellor. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer without examining any evidence submitted two ex parte reports. It is also alleged that copy of the reports were not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor has passed the impugned termination order against which representation has been rejected by the Chancellor. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and we have perused the same. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Rice Milling Project was temporary and the petitioners appointment was co-terminus with the project, which came to an end in the year 1991-92. However, on humanitarian ground, the petitioner was accommodated by way of re-employment and he was adjusted as Research Engineer in the University. A copy of the adjustment order is Annexure-C. A. 1. It is further alleged in para 3 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not selected as teacher as defined under Section 2 (K) of the Act. The petitioner was never given U. G. C. pay scale and he was never enjoying the category of teacher of the University. ( 6 ) IN para 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner had Agriculture engineering background and the University had established a new faculty of Agriculture engineering at Etawah, the civil work and construction of building was taking place there. The petitioner was directed to hold the additional charge as Project Officer to look after the construction work at Etawah. After the end of the work at Etawah, the petitioner was transferred to look after the work connected with Research Advance Training Centre located at Agriculture engineering College at Etawah vide order dated 21. 9. 2000. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor was annoyed is false and has been made to give colour to the case. In fact the transfer of the petitioner for the purpose of advance Research Training Centre at Etawah Agriculture Engineering College vide order dated 21. 9. 2000 was bona fide, and was a managerial and administrative decision of the Board as the nature of work at Etawah was commensurate with the petitioners, qualification relating to agriculture Engineering. In fact the transfer of the petitioner for the purpose of advance Research Training Centre at Etawah Agriculture Engineering College vide order dated 21. 9. 2000 was bona fide, and was a managerial and administrative decision of the Board as the nature of work at Etawah was commensurate with the petitioners, qualification relating to agriculture Engineering. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had shown reluctance in moving from Kanpur to Etawah and to avoid complication, he with an artful design reported for duty by submitting a joining report at Etawah on 12. 10. 2000, though he continued to remain physically and mentally at Kanpur. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was transferred from Kanpur to Etawah on 21. 9. 2000 and he was also allotted accommodation in the premises of Agriculture Engineering College at Etawah and on his request, he was permitted to retain the accommodation at Kanpur for four months on account of illness of his father, and the Vice Chancellor accepted his request, but years have rolled on but till date, he has not vacated the accommodation at Kanpur. In para 13 it is stated that the petitioner was suspended for committing financial irregularities. An F. I. R. was lodged against the petitioner for looting and maar peet with staff members of his project in the University. In this regard order dated 22. 5. 1988 and letter dated 12. 6. 1988 are Annexures-C. A. V and C. A. VI. The petitioner was absent from duty and hence this was published in the newspaper Dainik jagran vide Annexure-C. A. VII and C. A. VIII. The Chief Personnel Officer of the University in 1995 issued an order communicating to the petitioner that neither he had been attending his duties nor doing any work. The Deputy Director working in Rice Milling Project registered a complaint in local police station Nawabganj against, the petitioner for maar peet, true copy of which is Annexure-C. A. X. On 9. 12. 1995, the Board of Management took the cognizance that the petitioner is not doing any work and decided to initiate enquiries against him vide annexure-C. A. XI. The petitioner was again placed under suspension in 1998 vide annexure-C. A. XII. ( 7 ) FROM the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is a thoroughly indisciplined person. 12. 1995, the Board of Management took the cognizance that the petitioner is not doing any work and decided to initiate enquiries against him vide annexure-C. A. XI. The petitioner was again placed under suspension in 1998 vide annexure-C. A. XII. ( 7 ) FROM the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is a thoroughly indisciplined person. In our opinion, no leniency can be shown towards such a person who is thoroughly indiscipline and who does not work and instead makes false complaints against the Vice Chancellor. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner unsuccessfully tried to keep the enquiry proceeding in abeyance. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 23. 10. 2001, annexure-C. A. XV had informed the petitioner that he was being given a last opportunity for filing a written statement in reply to the charge-sheet. In para 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the letter of the petitioner was attended and replied and it was reiterated that the petitioner was furnished all the necessary and relevant documents regarding the charge-sheet but he failed to reply. In para 21 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was given repeated opportunities of hearing but he did not cooperate at all. ( 9 ) FROM the inquiry report Annexure-21 to the counter-affidavit dated 19. 11. 2001 it appears that the petitioner had been given opportunity seven times by the Enquiry Officer but he did not attend the enquiry nor even filed a reply to the charge-sheet. He only kept asking for adjournments. For instance on 17. 9. 2001 the petitioner was asked to submit his reply but he replied on 24. 9. 2001 praying for adjournment of the enquiry. On 28. 9. 2001 the Enquiry Officer informed him that the enquiry cannot be postponed and hence he was requested to submit his reply again on 9. 2. 2001. The petitioner was asked to give reply by 15. 10. 2001 but he did not give reply and instead made a request for the postponement of the enquiry. On 23. 10. 2001, he was informed that he was not cooperating with the enquiry and should reply within seven days failing with the enquiry would be conducted ex parte. However, he did not give reply. On 30. 10. 10. 2001 but he did not give reply and instead made a request for the postponement of the enquiry. On 23. 10. 2001, he was informed that he was not cooperating with the enquiry and should reply within seven days failing with the enquiry would be conducted ex parte. However, he did not give reply. On 30. 10. 2001, the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to be present in the enquiry on 9. 10. 2001 and examine the witnesses in his defence. On 3. 11. 2001, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Vice chancellor (not to the Enquiry Officer) demanding certain papers. The Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that he should be present on 9. 11. 2001 and all records would be made available to him on 9. 11. 2001 but the petitioner did not appear and the Enquiry Officer waited for the whole day but the petitioner did not appear instead he telephoned the Enquiry Officer on 15. 11. 2001 at 10. 30 a. m. that he was unwell and asked time again. Regarding the enquiry fixed for 15. 11. 2001 at 10. 30 a. m. before the Enquiry Officer the letter was sought to be delivered to him the same day at his residence but it was informed that the petitioner was out of station and no one was agreeable to accept the letter. Hence, it was sent by the registered post. Thus, seven times opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not avail the same and in fact he was not willing to participate in the enquiry. The past record of the petitioner is also very bad. He was suspended in 1988 by the then Vice-Chancellor. In 1998, he was again suspended by another vice Chancellor. It is well-settled that the principles of natural justice are not a strait jacket formula vide R. S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors. , 1998 (4) AWC 2. 4 (NOC) (SC) : 1999 (8)SCC 90 and Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (1) SCC 677 etc. In our opinion, there was sufficient compliance of natural justice, in this case. , 1998 (4) AWC 2. 4 (NOC) (SC) : 1999 (8)SCC 90 and Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (1) SCC 677 etc. In our opinion, there was sufficient compliance of natural justice, in this case. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, which we are inclined to believe, shows that the petitioner is a thoroughly indisciplined person who has no interest in work. He is not teacher as defined in the Act. He was adjusted on compassionate ground when he lost his job on abolition of Regional Extension Service Centre, but instead of feeling grateful for this act of humanity he evidently thought that he could do whatever he pleased. The facts stated in the counter-affidavit clearly show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing in the enquiry but he refused to participate in the same. ( 11 ) WRIT is a discretionary remedy and we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under article 226 of the Constitution in favour of such a person like the petitioner who is thoroughly indisciplined and does not work. It is evident that the petitioner was not interested in working at etawah. Thus, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in this case. The writ petition is dismissed.