JUDGMENT 1. - For brevity's sake, the history is to be repeated again and again. After initial induction as Lecturer in the Department of History & Indian Culture in the respondent University the petitioner was appointed on the post of Professor on 17.11.2001. The petitioner was further deputed as Head of Department, History & Indian Culture 3.4.2002. In view of many representations and complaints received in regard to the irregularities in promotion of the petitioner on the post of Professor, the Chancellor of the University appointed Mr. Anil Vaish to enquire into the matter vide order dated 22.5.2002. The order was passed under Section 10(3) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946. Mr. Anil Vaish submitted his report on 29.6.2002 with the following conclusions : "(i) the entire process of promotions adopted by the University suffered from lapses, the impact of some of which could vitiate the proceedings; (ii) the process of promotion of Dr. Santosh Sharma to the post of Professor in the History Department contained serious irregularities; and (iii) charges contained in the complaint dated 3.4.2002 submitted to HE the Chancellor were by the large sustaintiated, prima facie, though some of these allegations required further investigation by a competent agency, before they could be considered to have been established beyond doubt." 2. The above report submitted by Mr. Anil Vaish was accepted by the Syndicate on 5.9.2002 with the following Resolution : 1. Resolved to accept the Vaish Committee "Report of Enquiry into Irregularities in the Promotion of Dr. Santosh Sharma, Associate Professor (History) University of Rajasthan to the post of Professor (History) under CAS, June 2002." 2. Further resolved in view of grave charges contained in the report Dr. Santosh Sharma be placed under suspension immediately. 3. Further resolved that disciplinary action to be initiated against Dr. Santosh Sharma for grave professional misconduct as pointed out in the enquiry report, for; 1. Misrepresentation before the Selection Committee on facts pertaining to academic material claimed to have been published by her. 2. Presentation of plagiarized material as original research in articles and books claimed to have been authorised by her; 3. Interpolation in earlier issues of Journal of Rajasthan Institute of Historical Research of articles authored by her, and representation of these issues as recent volumes published under her co- editorship. 4. 2. Presentation of plagiarized material as original research in articles and books claimed to have been authorised by her; 3. Interpolation in earlier issues of Journal of Rajasthan Institute of Historical Research of articles authored by her, and representation of these issues as recent volumes published under her co- editorship. 4. Further resolved that this matter be referred to the Anti Corruption Bureau (RSBI) for further investigation in the matter of promotion in the Department of history in the following matters : 1. Reconstruction of earlier issues of Journal of Rajasthan Institute of Historical Research by altering cover and contents pages and addition of her own articles. 2. Presentation of plagiarized material as original research. This reference of ACD would be made within 15 days." 3. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 5.9.2002. Formal charge sheet has also been issued to the petitioner on 9.122002 followed by another charge sheet on 6.2.2003. An enquiry Committee headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of High Court had also been constituted vide order dated 3.12.2003. 4. Petitioner filed writ petition before this Court challenging above Resolution dated 5.9 2002 passed by the Syndicate as also the order of suspension dated 5.9.2002 with a prayer for quashing the report of Mr Anil Vaish Committee as also the charge sheets, if any issued. During the pendency of the above Writ Petition No. 6621/2002 filed by the petitioner, it appears that another Resolution was passed by the Syndicate on 17.7.2004 by which the report of Mr. Anil Vaish was rejected and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated as Head of Department (History) after revocation of her order of suspension. The above Resolution dated 17.7.2004 as also order of reinstatement and revocation of suspension were challenged by one Dr. Rashmi Patni & ors. by tiling a Writ Petition No. 3400/2002 before this Court. Both the above writ petitions filed by the petitioner and Dr. Rashmi Patni were heard and decided by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2006. This Court observed that after charge sheet been served upon the petitioner Dr. Santosh Sharma and an enquiry committee also been duly constituted there was no occasion for the Syndicate to pass a fresh Resolution on 17.7.2004 reversing the earlier Resolution dated 5.9.2002, more so, when the matter was sub judice before this Court in the writ petition tiled by the present petitioner. Santosh Sharma and an enquiry committee also been duly constituted there was no occasion for the Syndicate to pass a fresh Resolution on 17.7.2004 reversing the earlier Resolution dated 5.9.2002, more so, when the matter was sub judice before this Court in the writ petition tiled by the present petitioner. However, while disposing both the writ petitions, this Court passed the following order : "Be that as it may. looking to the nature of allegations made against Dr. Santosh Sharma and a total stalemate been created in view of status-quo orders passed by this Court, without making any observations on merits, in the interest of justice, it will be proper to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry within a stipulated time. The respondents University is now directed to request the enquiry committee to conclude the enquiry and submit report as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. It is also expected from the petitioner Dr. Santosh Sharma to cooperate in the enquiry. After receiving the enquiry report, the respondents are further directed to take a decision and pass necessary orders within two months thereafter. If any party is still aggrieved, they are always fee to seek remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. So far as the suspension is concerned, the petitioner Dr. Santosh Sharma may make a proper representation to the concerning authorities for revocation of her suspension order and the respondent University shall be at liberty to pass any order on the representation.i so made by Dr. Santosh Sharma. However, it is made clear that in case of revocation of suspension, Dr. Santosh Sharma will not be made Head of Department till orders after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the directions issued above, the resolution passed by the Syndicate on 17.07.2004 shall not be given effect to." 5. The matter would again not end here. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 9.5.2006, though, a three members committee had already been constituted way back on 3.12.2003, the Syndicate resolved to appoint one Member Enquiry Committee of retired Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Bhargava vide Resolution dated 5.7.2006. The above Resolution dated 5.7.2006, however, came to be withdrawn and substituted by another Resolution dated 25.7.2006, by which, earlier three members committee so appointed was to continue to enquire against the petitioner. Justice S.N. Bhargava vide Resolution dated 5.7.2006. The above Resolution dated 5.7.2006, however, came to be withdrawn and substituted by another Resolution dated 25.7.2006, by which, earlier three members committee so appointed was to continue to enquire against the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for reinstatement and revocation of her suspension on the post of Professor (History). The enquiry proceedings have been assailed on the ground of nonpayment of subsistence allowance as also allegations of personal bias and prejudice against two members of the enquiry committee i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3. 6. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made his submissions only on the ground of personal bias and prejudice of respondents No.2 and 3. It has been alleged that respondent No. 2 Dr. M.S. Jain had been a colleague of father of the petitioner and always had a rivalry with him, as such, the petitioner had no faith of fair enquiry by the committee. So far as Mr. R.P. Bhatnagar, respondent No. 3, is concerned, it has been alleged that his wife has been serving as Reader in the Department, as such he might also be prejudice with the petitioner. 7. Mr. R.A. Katta, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while denying any bias or prejudice of respondents No. 2 and 3, has tried to bring to the notice of the Court the conduct of the petitioner herself in not cooperating with the enquiry as already ordered by this Court in the earlier judgment. 8. After having considered the submission made at the Bar, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 9. So far as payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that entire payment of subsistence allowance has already been offered to the petitioner, however, for one reason or the other, she has refused to accept the same. The directions for reinstatement and revocation of suspension order cannot be issued now at this stage in view of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment, as referred to above. The liberty was only given to the respondent University to revoke order of suspension, however, no right was created in favour of the petitioner as such. 10. The directions for reinstatement and revocation of suspension order cannot be issued now at this stage in view of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment, as referred to above. The liberty was only given to the respondent University to revoke order of suspension, however, no right was created in favour of the petitioner as such. 10. Earlier order dated 9.5.2006 passed by this Court has not been challenged by the petitioner any further. Three members Enquiry Committee had already been appointed long back in December, 2003. Neither constitution of Enquiry Committee was challenged nor malafides alleged against the members of the Enquiry Committee even if raised in the writ petition were pressed at the time of disposal of earlier writ petitions. Otherwise, necessary directions could also have been issued by this Court accordingly. It was only after the Enquiry Committee proceeded with the enquiry as per directions of this Court that the petitioner tried to resist the enquiry by levelling allegations of bias and prejudice against two members of the Enquiry Committee. A bare reading of the material placed on record would snow that things have been blown out of proportion just to get undue sympathy of this Court . 11. Looking to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, only the experts in the subject concerned can assess, evaluate, adjudge and make proper report on the allegations made against the petitioner. In absence of" any cogent material even bias and prejudice of the members of the committee cannot be presumed more so when the committee is headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of the High Court in whom the petitioner has full faith. The wild allegations against eminent scholars and academicians cannot be entertained in such a casual manner. Rather malafides of the petitioner are at writ large while maligning both respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner on the face of it is guilty of misrepresentation before this Court. One of the allegations has been that Dr. M.S. Jain had been one of the competitions with the father of the petitioner for the post of Professor (Tagore) in History whereas, on the contrary, Dr. M.S. Jain was, in fact, one of the members of the selection committee for selection to the above post in which hither of the petitioner was selected. There is nothing on record to show that Dr. M.S. Jain was, in fact, one of the members of the selection committee for selection to the above post in which hither of the petitioner was selected. There is nothing on record to show that Dr. M.S. Jain ever tried to harm father of the petitioner or even in any manner the petitioner as well. The allegations of bias against respondent No. 3 also cannot be entertained only on the ground that his wife is working as Reader in the History Department of the respondent University. No material, whatsoever has been placed on record to show that wife of respondent No.3 has in any manner lis or in competition with the petitioner. Petitioner has deliberately levelled unfounded allegations against both the respondents No. 2 and 3 only to avoid conclusion of the enquiry against her as also compliance of direction issued by this Court earlier. Such delaying tactics has only to be deprecated. The present writ petition on the face of it, appears to be nothing but a sheer misuse of due process of law. 12. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, in view of clear directions issued earlier, I find no ground for any further interfere of this Court in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 30,000/-, which may be shared by the respondents in equal amount. Since compliance of earlier order dated 9.5.2006 could not be made by the respondents in time, the enquiry committee is now directed to complete the enquiry and submit the report within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the enquiry committee feels that the petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the enquiry, the enquiry committee may also proceed ex parte against the petitioner. After receipt of enquiry report necessary consequential orders be passed by the respondent No. 1 within thirty days thereafter and, if required, emergency meeting of the Syndicate may also be held.Petition dismissed. *******