Order The petitioner was appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor, Soil (Agro Forestry), in the Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi on 5.11.1990. According to the service condition, services of the petitioner was transferable within the zone of Birsa Agricultural University. On 25.8.2003, the Vice-Chancellor, Birsa Agricultural University transferred the petitioner from Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke to Z.R.S., Dumka but the petitioner did not join his new assignment at Dumka, though he had been relieved from his office at Kanke on 26.8.2003. When the petitioner did not join his new posting, several reminders, according to the respondents, were given to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to give his joining. He was even requested through notice published in the newspaper but he did not pay any heed to it. 2. Further case of the respondents is that the petitioner not only disobeyed the order but also misbehaved with his superior and hence, he was suspended from the service, vide order dated 29.10.2003. Thereupon a committee was constituted to proceed with the departmental enquiry. Charges on being framed were duly served upon the petitioner with a notice to file reply, if any, which, according to the respondents, was never filed. Ultimately, the committee submitted its report to the Vice Chancellor on 17.3.2004. Thereupon, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.4.2004 alongwith a copy of the enquiry report but the petitioner, according to the respondents, instead of making proper reply, put forth allegation against one of the members of the enquiry committee. However, Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 26.6.2004 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before His Excellency, the Chancellor of the University, who after hearing did find that before passing the order of dismissal, proper opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner and hence, the order of dismissal was set aside, vide its order dated 10.6.2005 with a direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry after hearing the appellant within one month and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law/provisions of statute. 4. Thereupon the enquiry committee was reconstituted for making enquiry on the allegation but the petitioner, according to the case of the respondents, instead of defending himself properly always made accusation against the member of the committee. 4. Thereupon the enquiry committee was reconstituted for making enquiry on the allegation but the petitioner, according to the case of the respondents, instead of defending himself properly always made accusation against the member of the committee. However, the committee submitted its report on 10.8.2006 before the Vice Chancellor, upon which a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Thereupon, the Vice-Chancellor after taking into account the charges and the finding given by the committee, passed the order of dismissal again on 15.5.2008 (Annexure-4). 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Chancellor, who having found the appeal being devoid of any merit, dismissed it vide its order dated 5.7.2009 (Annexure-9). Thereupon, a review application was filed on 26.7.2009 before the same authority which got dismissed on 20.3.2010 (Annexure-14). 6. The said order of dismissal dated 15.5.2008 (Annexure-4) as well as the orders passed in appeal and also in revision as contained in Annexures-9 and 14 respectively have been sought to be quashed through this writ application. 7. Dr. Anant Prasad Jaiswal appearing in person in order to assail the impugned orders took a sole point that the Vice-Chancellor, the disciplinary authority before imposing penalty of termination did not furnish any ground on which he has passed order of termination, though, as per Clause 13.9 of the Sirsa Agricultural University Statutes, the ground on which the Vice-Chancellor has passed the order of termination was required to be furnished to the delinquent so that delinquent may give effective reply in his show cause but the disciplinary authority without complying the said provision has passed the order and hence, not only the order passed by the disciplinary authority but also the orders passed by the learned Chancellor in an appeal and also in review application are fit to be set aside. 8. He further submitted that before passing the order of termination even the enquiry report had not been served upon him. 9. Mr. 8. He further submitted that before passing the order of termination even the enquiry report had not been served upon him. 9. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel by referring paragraph 34 of the counter affidavit submitted that copy of the enquiry report had been served upon the petitioner which would be evident from the fact that if the enquiry report had not been served upon the delinquent, he would not have been in position to raise objection before the Vice-Chancellor and thus, it has been submitted that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that the enquiry report had never been served. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking to the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, it does appear that the petitioner in his memo of appeal has since taken certain points assailing the enquiry report, presumption is being drawn that enquiry report must have been served upon the petitioner but nothing concrete has been placed so as to be established that the enquiry report had been served upon the appellant but in the facts and circumstances, the crucial question is as to whether the disciplinary authority in terms of sub-clause (iv) of Clause 13.9 of the Birsa Agricultural University Statutes approved by the 59th meeting of the Board of Management has been complied with or not. The said Clause 13.9 reads as follows: "13.9.(1)-Any one or more of the penalties specified in Clause (2) given below may, for good and sufficient reasons, such as misconduct, moral turpitude, neglect of duty, violation of term or condition of service, inefficiency, indiscipline, criminal conviction, be imposed upon an employee. The said Clause 13.9 reads as follows: "13.9.(1)-Any one or more of the penalties specified in Clause (2) given below may, for good and sufficient reasons, such as misconduct, moral turpitude, neglect of duty, violation of term or condition of service, inefficiency, indiscipline, criminal conviction, be imposed upon an employee. NOTE: The 'misconduct' for this purpose means: (1) willful disobedience or wilful omission or negligence in executing any lawful orders or instructions, or (ii) willful breach of trust and duty, or (iii) demand, acceptance or receipt by the employee, in the discharge of his duties, by gift gratuity, reward or remuneration except in accordance with the University rules or orders, or express permission of the Vice-Chancellor; (iv) indulging in unlawful activity or in political preaching among the students or employees of the University; (v) doing anything which undermines or is likely to undermine the prestige of the University or is detrimental to its interests or disturbs or is likely to disturb the harmony and cohesion of the University's corporate life, or (vi) communicating any document or information, which has come into his possession in the course of discharge of, his duties, without general or special permission of authorization directly or indirectly, to any person who is not entitled to receive such information or document. (2) The following are the minor and major penalties which may be imposed upon a University employee: (a) Minor Penalties (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of increments including stoppage of an efficiency bar; (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders or any other act of commissions or omissions; (b) Major Penalties (iv) Reduction to a lower post or to a lower stage in a time scale of pay; (v) Removal from University service which does not ordinarily disability for any other employment in the University; (vi) Compulsory retirement; (vii) Dismissal from University service which ordinarily disqualifies for further employment in the University and involves ordinarily loss of all accrued financial benefits. (3) The appointing authority shall be competent to impose any of the punishments mentioned in clause (2), and an authority, subordinate to the appointing authority, namely Deans, Directors and Principals can impose any minor punishment to Class-III and Class IV employees mentioned in sub-clause (a) of Clause (2), and the punishment of censure in the case of the other staff posted under him if empowered to do so by the former: Provided that no order shall be passed imposing any major penalty on a University employee unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such a representation has been duly taken into consideration. Explanation.-The full procedure indicated in clause (4) below for a major punishment need not be followed in a case of minor punishment. It will be sufficient, if the officer concerned given an opportunity of explaining the charges against him and the explanation so submitted is taken into consideration before orders are passed. (4) The grounds on which it is proposed to impose any major punishment shall be communicated in writing to the University servant concerned and he shall be required to state within a reasonable time. 11. Simple reading of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Clause 13.9 do indicate that the disciplinary authority on receiving the enquiry report if proposes to impose major punishment then the ground on which he proposes to pass order of major punishment needs to be communicated to the delinquent so that the delinquent may make an effective representation and only then after taking into consideration the representation, the disciplinary authority is required to pass major punishment. 12. In the instant case, the University has not come forward with the plea that any such ground, on which dismissal order was passed had ever been communicated to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective representation. 13. Thus, the impugned order of dismissal as contained in Annexure-4 is fit to be set aside. At the same time, the order passed in appeal and also on review application as contained in Annexures-9 and 14 respectively are also fit to be set aside as the learned appellate authority failed to take into consideration that on account of non-observance of the statutory provision, the impugned order of termination suffers from illegality. 14. At the same time, the order passed in appeal and also on review application as contained in Annexures-9 and 14 respectively are also fit to be set aside as the learned appellate authority failed to take into consideration that on account of non-observance of the statutory provision, the impugned order of termination suffers from illegality. 14. Accordingly, the orders as contained in Annexures-4, 9 and 14 are hereby set aside. Hence, this writ application is allowed. However, the disciplinary authority will beat liberty to proceed with the matter relating to imposition of penalty in accordance with law.