Judgment :- (1.) The writ application bearing No. W.P. 16081 (W) 2007 is filed for a direction upon the university to grant re-employment to the petitioner as the professor in department of Mathematics, faculty of science under the respondent university. (2.) The subject matter of challenge in second writ application bearing No. W.P. 2792 (W) of 2008 is an order dated January 29, 2008. By the above order, the decisions of executive council of the respondent university not to extend the period of reemployment of the petitioner beyond January 31, 2008 and the direction upon the petitioner to refund Rs. 70,000/-towards the cost of one LCD Projector were communicated. (3.) The issues involved in the aforesaid two writ applications are co-related depending upon the same set of facts and circumstances. So, both the writ applications are taken up for analogous hearing. (4.) The facts, of the case in a nutshell are as under.: The petitioner was a teacher in the department of mathematics, faculty of science under the respondent university. He retired from the aforesaid services on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation on October 31, 2006. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, he was reemployed by an order dated October 18.19.2006 initially for a period of three months with effect from November 1, 2006 in the existing terms and conditions as a special case. The period of re-employment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. (5.) During his above tenure of re-employment an international symposium was organised in the Department of Mathematics, faculty of science under the respondent university from December 2, 2005 to December 4, 2005. The petitioner was the Joint Convener of the aforesaid symposium. For the purpose of conducting the above symposium various authorities sanctioned funds as under: (6.) Besides registration fee was charged from the delegates. (7.) Organising committee adopted a resolution in its meeting dated April 28, 2006 to purchase a LCD Projector from M/s. TIHOTS as per their quotation out of the fund of Rs. 40,000/- which had been provided by NBHM. But the respondent No. 2, namely the Vice- Chancellor of the respondent university did not give the approval for purchasing the above mentioned LCD Projector out of the fund provided by NBHM. 40,000/- which had been provided by NBHM. But the respondent No. 2, namely the Vice- Chancellor of the respondent university did not give the approval for purchasing the above mentioned LCD Projector out of the fund provided by NBHM. The petitioner placed purchase order to M/s. TIHOTS on June 26, 2006 and the LCD Projector was received and installed in the department of Mathematics, faculty of science under the respondent university attande instance of the petitioner. (8.) The finance department did not realise the bill raised by M/s. TIHOTS towards the cost of the aforesaid LCD Projector due to the objection raised by the head of the Department of Mathematics under the respondent university. The dean faculty of science had been asked by the authority of the respondent university to enquire in to the matter and he submitted a report stating that the purchase procedures were not followed in purchasing the instrument under reference. Subsequently, one man fact finding committee was constituted in the matter. The above fact finding committee submitted his report dated February 15, 2007 with the finding that the instrument under reference had been purchased without the approval of the competent authority violating the existing procedure. (9.) On receipt of the report dated February 15, 2007 of the one man fact finding committee, the respondent university framed the following charges against the writ petitioner as under. "1. That you could not produce any paper/document to prove that you had with you prior approval of the competent authority regarding purchase of the LCD Projector. 2. That you failed to produce any paper/document regarding invitation of quotations relating to purchase of the said LCD Projector. 3. That you failed to produce any paper/document relating to issue of work order to the supplier. 4. That you failed to produce any paper/document containing stock entry of the projector. 5. That the said Projector was not made available for physical verification of the Investigating Officer. 6. That the purchase episode was not in the knowledge of the Head of the Department thus violated the norms of the University. 7. That statement of account was submitted but you admitted some savings either from subscription or advertisement. 8. 5. That the said Projector was not made available for physical verification of the Investigating Officer. 6. That the purchase episode was not in the knowledge of the Head of the Department thus violated the norms of the University. 7. That statement of account was submitted but you admitted some savings either from subscription or advertisement. 8. That you entered the office room of the Department along with unauthorized person without prior approval of the Head of the Department and searched the records in violation of office norms." (10.) The petitioner submitted his reply dated May 4, 2007 to the above charges. On receipt of the above reply from the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 was appointed as enquiry officer and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as the presenting officer. After conducting the above enquiry the respondent No. 6 submitted his enquiry report to the authority on November 29, 2007, holding that the purchase of the LCD Projector under reference was made by inviting quotation, placing work order without approval of the authority as also denial of purchase was estopped under the principles of extoppel. In view of the above the respondent No. 6 arrived at a conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the executive council of respondent university passed the impugned order. (11.) It is submitted by Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, that the decision for purchasing LCD Projector under reference was taken by virtue of the resolution dated April 28, 2006 adopted in the meeting of the organising committee for holding the Symposium. According to Mr. Basu it was approved by the Registrar of the respondent university on July 24, 2006. The purchase of the above Projector was also an admitted fact and the same was laying in the department of Mathematics, faculty of science of the respondent university. It is also submitted by Mr. Basu that admittedly, no payment was made out of the fund of the respondent university for purchasing the above LCD Projector. Therefore, according to him the decision for realisation of an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner was based on no evidence and cannot be sustained in law. According to him such decision was taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated November, 29, 2007 which was second enquiry in the matter. Therefore, according to him the decision for realisation of an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner was based on no evidence and cannot be sustained in law. According to him such decision was taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated November, 29, 2007 which was second enquiry in the matter. Therefore, the second enquiry in the self-same matter was not permissible in law. It is further submitted that in the event of failure to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner, his right to get benefit of re-employment would automatically survive. (12.) In support of the above submissions the decisions of Bagwati Prasad Dubey v. The Food Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1988 SC 432, Union of India v. K.D. Pandey and Anr., reported in (2002)10 SCC 471 , Radhika Kapur and Ors. v. DLF Universal Ltd., reported in (2004)13 SCC 343 and Kanailal Bera v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007)11 SCC 517 are relied upon. (13.) Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university, submits that the decision for realisation of the money towards the price of the LCD Projector in question as also not to extend the period services of the petitioner beyond December 31, 2007 was taken by the executive council of the respondent university on the basis of the enquiry report dated November 29, 2007. That was the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer was appointed by the authority for submitting a report in the matter of alleged irregularities in purchasing the LCD Projector under reference. The enquiry officer was appointed only after availability of a report from the one man fact finding committee. The charges were also framed on the basis of the report of the one man fact finding committee. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university that for purchasing the LCD Projector under reference the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was not obtained. There was violation of the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Kalyani University Act, 1981. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner purchased the above LCD Projector without any authority. With regard to the question of realising money from the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university that the petitioner is at liberty to take that machine from the university for his own use. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner purchased the above LCD Projector without any authority. With regard to the question of realising money from the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university that the petitioner is at liberty to take that machine from the university for his own use. But the university cannot be fastened with the liability to remit the bill for purchasing the same. With regard to the extension of the service period of the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent university submits that to protect the university from future damage the executive council of the respondent university decided not to extend the period of re-employment of the petitioner. It is also submitted by him that the screening committee in its meeting dated December 10, 2007 unanimously decided that in view of the dispute involving administrative irregularity and grate financial import at the instance of the petitioner, the matter should be forwarded to the executive council for final decision. On the basis of the above observation as also considering the report of the enquiry officer, the period of services of the petitioner was not extended beyond December 31, 2007. (14.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Joint Convenor of the organising committee for holding the international symposium during the period from December 2, 2005 to December 4, 2005. It is also an admitted fact that one LCD projector was purchased by the petitioner in course of discharging his function as the Joint Convenor of the above organising committee. The respondent university obtained a report from a fact finding committee purporting that the petitioner had purchased the above instrument without due approval of the authority. It is also not in dispute that the respondent university framed the charges of irregularity in purchasing the above instrument against the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the above fact finding committee and appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner giving him a reasonable opportunity. Admittedly, the enquiry committee after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner submitted the report dated November 29, 2007 to the respondent authority. Admittedly, the enquiry committee after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner submitted the report dated November 29, 2007 to the respondent authority. Admittedly, the executive council of the respondent university passed the impugned order on the basis of the above enquiry report. (15.) I do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent university conducted two enquiries on the self-same cause of action because on receipt of an allegation of irregular purchase of the instrument under reference, one fact finding committee was directed to submit a report to the respondent university. Only after receiving the report from the fact finding committee, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the enquiry officer was appointed to hold an enquiry on the above charges. It is pertinent to mention here that the report of the fact finding committee was not contrary to the ultimate conclusion reached by the enquiry officer with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the fact finding committee. More so, in the enquiry held in connection with the charges framed against the petitioner he got reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted to the respondent authority. (16.) With regard to the question of not extension of the period of services of the petitioner beyond January 31, 2008,1 find that in accordance with the provisions of Clause (2) of U. ord. 16 (USC) the executive council was under obligation to act on the basis of recommendation of the screening committee. From the materials on record I find that the screening committee adopted a resolution in its meeting dated May 15, 2007 deciding unanimously to place the matter of further extension of the period of the services of the petitioner before the executive council for its decision after taking into consideration the administrative irregularity and grave financial import arising out of the conduct of the petitioner. The executive council took into consideration the above resolution of the screening committee as also the report of the enquiry committee and decided not to extend the services the period of re-employment of the petitioner beyond January 31, 2008. Therefore, the provisions of U. ord. 16 (USC) was complied with. WBLR-58 (17.) Regarding the enquiry report, I find that the petitioner got reasonable opportunity in defending his case before the enquiry officer. Therefore, the provisions of U. ord. 16 (USC) was complied with. WBLR-58 (17.) Regarding the enquiry report, I find that the petitioner got reasonable opportunity in defending his case before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer came to a conclusion that the purchase of LCD Projector had been made without due approval of the respondent No. 2. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Kalyani University Act, 1981, the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was a condition precedent in case of purchase of LCD Projector under reference. At this stage the examination of the above decision making is permissible to this Court in view of the following settled-principles of law as decided in the matter of State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 : -"When the issue raised in Judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as matter of law, of the relevance of the factors." (18.) Upon considering the decision making process adopted by the enquiry officer this Court does not find any procedural impropriety in the decision of the enquiry officer with regard to the purchase of the LCD Projector without approval of the competent authority. (19.) But with regard to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the matter of purchasing the LCD Projector in question, the decision making process of the enquiry officer needs careful consideration. Admittedly, the enquiry officer held that there was no approval from the competent authority in purchasing the LCD Projector. In other wards there was no assurance from the competent authority on the basis of which the seller could alter his position to his prejudice by supplying it to the respondent university without payment. In Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, reported in AIR 1951 SC 469 (at page 474) Patanjali Sastri, J. observed as follows : "12. In Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, reported in AIR 1951 SC 469 (at page 474) Patanjali Sastri, J. observed as follows : "12. After these decisions of the Privy Council elucidating the principles underlying Ramaden v. Dyson, 1866 L.R. 1 H.L. 129 and Manddison v. Alderson,(1883) 8 A.C. 467, it seems to me clear that they have no application to the facts of the present case. They can no more prevail against the statutory provisions regarding the disposition of property or the making of contracts by Government than against the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act requiring registered instruments for effecting certain classes of transactions. No question of estoppel by representation arises, for the Government made no representation of fact which it now seeks to deny." (20.) Applying the above settled principles of law, this Court finds that the element of assurance from the respondent university was absent in the instant case in view of the absence of approval of the competent authority prescribed under the provisions of subsections of Section 10 of the Kalyani University Act, 1981. Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse in respect of application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in case of purchasing the LCD Projector in question. (21.) Now, the only question which is left to be answered is the propriety of the decision to realise the amount of Rs. 70,000/-from the petitioner towards the cost of the LCD Projector under reference. It is evident from the physical verification report dated February 5, 2008 that the machine was lying in the department of Mathematics of the respondent university. No material is available on record to show that the cost of the above machine was paid to the seller out of the fund of the university. Even assuming that the LCD Projector under reference was not required for the international symposium under reference, no material is available on record to show that subsequently the same was lying in the department of Mathematics of the respondent university idle or the university was not in need of such a Projector. Therefore, the university was to arrive at a decision with regard to the necessity of such LCD Projector for the department of Mathematics. Therefore, the university was to arrive at a decision with regard to the necessity of such LCD Projector for the department of Mathematics. In the event, the decision is in favour of retaining the same, the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability of making payment of cost of that instrument. However, in the event the instrument was not at all required by the respondent university, it would be open for them to take steps in accordance with the law for preventing wastage of any amount of money from the fund of the respondent university. (22.) Since I have held hereinabove that the purchasing of the LCD Projector in question was without approval of the competent authority, it does not lie on the mouth of the petitioner that the conclusion of the executive council was based on no evidence. As a consequent the decision of the Bhagwati Prasad (supra) has no manner of application in this case. The decisions of K.K. Panday (supra) and Kanailal Bera (supra) have no bearing on this case. In those cases the findings given in favour of the charged employee were reversed in subsequent reports unlike the admitted facts of the instance case. The decision of LT,. Governor, Delhi (supra) has no manner of application in this case in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case. (23.) Consequent upon the above discussions and observations the first writ application bearing W.P. No. 16081 (W) of 2007 stands dismissed. (24.) The second writ application bearing W.P. No. 2792(W) of 2008 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated January 29, 2008 partially for restraining the respondents from realising any amount from the petitioner towards the cost of LCD Projector in question at the stage. The competent authority of the respondent university is directed to arrive at a decision with regard to the necessity of retaining the LCD Projector in question for the respondent university. If the competent authority of the respondent university comes to a conclusion that there is no necessity of retaining the same, then the respondent university will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law for preventing wastage of any amount of money from the fund of the respondent university towards the cost of the LCD Projector under reference. (25.) There will be, however, no order as to costs.