Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University and learned counsel for the Hon ble Chancellor. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Associate Professor in the Rajendra Agricultural University. On account of complaint for certain charges of alleged corruption and misuse of official power, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which an enquiry report was finally submitted by the Enquiry Committee of three members. The final disciplinary authority was the Vice Chancellor and in that capacity, when the petitioner was asked to submit his comments to the enquiry, by Annexure-12 dated 22.5.2004 petitioner requested the Vice Chancellor not to associate himself with the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that petitioner had levelled certain allegations against the Vice Chancellor in some proceeding before Justice Uday Sinha Committee. On 25.5.2004 the Vice Chancellor rejected petitioners request and against that petitioner moved the Hon ble Chancellor for suitable orders. It appears by order dated 8.7.2004 contained in Annexure-15 the Hon ble Chancellor asked the petitioner to submit his show-cause/ comments within 15 days. Thus, time was admittedly available till 23rd of July, 2004. The Vice Chancellor was directed by the Chancellor to pass a speaking order dealing with the reply that may be filed by the petitioner. By Annexare-16 on 23.7 2004, petitioner submitted his show-cause before the Vice Chancellor but on the next date he was served with the impugned order contained in Annexure-17 which was passed on 24.7.2004 at 8:00 P.M. without considering petitioners show-cause. 3. This writ petition was filed prior to issuance of the impugned order for a direction on the Chancellor not to associate himself with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The impugned order contained in Annexure-17 has been brought on record through an amendment petition and is under challenge. 4. In the facts of the case, prayer for amendment is allowed and petitioner is permitted to challenge the impugned order contained in Annexure-17 dated 22.7.2004. 5. The impugned order contained in Annexure-17 has been brought on record through an amendment petition and is under challenge. 4. In the facts of the case, prayer for amendment is allowed and petitioner is permitted to challenge the impugned order contained in Annexure-17 dated 22.7.2004. 5. An affidavit on behalf of Chancellor has been filed and in paragraph-10 of the said affidavit, it is admitted position that on 8.7.2004, Chancellor had granted 15 days time to the petitioner for filing his show-cause and the Vice Chancellor was required to pass a speaking order and in the views of Hon ble Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order in apparent haste without waiting for the show-cause of the petitioner which was filed on the last permissible date i.e. 23.7.2004. 6. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that there is new Vice Chancellor now in the office and there is no requirement to disassociate the Vice Chancellor from the disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner. In view of this development the ends of justice would be satisfied by quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure-17 and remitting the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to pass afresh order in the disciplinary proceeding in respect of petitioner taking into consideration his show-cause in accordance with direction of the Chancellor dated 8.7.2004. 7. As a result of quashing of Annexure-17, petitioner would be entitled to consequential reliefs to which he may be entitled, had he continued under the disciplinary proceeding till date. 8. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the Vice Chancellor should dispose of the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within two months. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.