Judgment :- The Appellant/Petitioner has filed present writ appeal as against the order dated 08.09.1999 passed in W.P.No.3876 of 1988, by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. The Learned Single Judge while passing orders in the writ petition has inter alia observed that ....In case if the respondent / Authority did not pass any final order with regard to the termination of service of the Petitioner, that order will be the subject matter of separate writ petition. So far as the writ petition is concerned, the Petitioner has challenged only the order passed by the respondent on 30.11.1987. As observed earlier, it is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the Petitioner was requested to vacate the quarters of the institute as allotted to the Petitioner, which was in his occupation. It is clear that any public servant who occupies quarters should vacate the quarters from the date of the termination order. In this case, the Petitioner was requested to vacate the quarters in pursuance to the statutory provisions. The impugned order is well considered order etc., and resultantly, dismissed the writ petition without costs. 2. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.3876 of 1988 dated 08.09.1999, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has projected this writ appeal before this Court. 3. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition by misconstruing the impugned order of the respondent in Ref.No.435/A2/86-87/2250 dated 30.11.1987, as not the order of dismissal of the Appellant/Petitioner from his service but only a consequential order of the dismissal of the Appellant which was not challenged by him. 4. As a matter of fact, the Learned Single Judge had wrongly presumed that the impugned order was passed by the respondent in his administrative capacity as per the order of the syndicate of the Respondent/University when particularly, no such averments were made in the counter affidavit of the Respondent. 5. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/ Petitioner that the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.11.1987, does not refer to any order or resolution passed by Syndicate of the Respondent/ University or the Authority to whom the power was delegated by the syndicate nor enclosed any order of the syndicate in dismissing the Appellant from service. 6. 6. That apart, a specific plea is taken on behalf of the Appellant/ Petitioner that the Learned Single Judge had failed to see that the Syndicate resolved to appoint Enquiry Officer for taking Disciplinary Enquiry by evolving its own procedure and neither Enquiry Officer nor Respondent furnished a Charge Sheet against the Appellant and has called for his explanation but straight away conducted enquiry behind the back of the Appellant recording the statements of the witness and as such the entire proceedings itself is illegal and unsustainable under law. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the absence of any termination order passed upon the Petitioner by the Competent Authority either by the syndicate or the Vice Chancellor to whom the power of attorney was delegated by the resolution dated 14.11.1986 on syndicate as per the Regulation 4 (36) of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the respondent, the impugned order dated 30.11.1987, passed by the Registrar of the University was to be construed as an order of termination, since the Appellant was dismissed from service of the respondent by means of order dated 30.11.1987 and hence the Learned Single Judge should have passed orders on the merits of the case. 8. Expatiating his submissions, the learned counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner contends that in the instant case on hand, no show cause notice with charges was issued to the Appellant/Petitioner but only an explanation was called for from him and also that no opportunity was provided to the Appellant/ Petitioner to cross-examine the witness and moreover, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the statements of the witnesses taken behind the back of the Appellant without examining them in his presence, in spite of requisition dated 27.07.1987 made by the Appellant. Further, the copies of the statements of all the witnesses were not furnished to the Appellant/Petitioner along with the Enquiry Officers report and hence, entire Disciplinary Proceedings is vitiated in law. 9. The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Enquiry Officer had not taken into account the admission made by Prof. Subramanian that the termination order of the Administrative Committee suggested to include the names of the candidates given by him by revising the selection list on the recommendations of the persons concerned. 9. The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Enquiry Officer had not taken into account the admission made by Prof. Subramanian that the termination order of the Administrative Committee suggested to include the names of the candidates given by him by revising the selection list on the recommendations of the persons concerned. Indeed, the Appellant/Petitioner alone was not to be singled out in regard to the commission of malpractice when he was forced to do so by superior and the same was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Besides above, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that Prof.Rangarajan could not have the knowledge of the substitution of answer sheet is a preconceived one and contrary to fact considering the evidence of witnesses and therefore the entire Enquiry proceedings was a biased one. 11. Moreover, the Learned counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the impugned order does not contain reasons and discussions of the explanation of the Appellant/Petitioner and the evidence of witness for arriving at a conclusion of imposing the punishment of dismissal of the Appellant/Petitioner. 12. The contention of the the Learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Enquiry Officer should not have concluded that the charges were proved contrary to the evidence of witness, Gandhigram-Finance Officer that some names were added to the original list by Prof.Rangarajan, the Chairman of the Administrative Committee in his own hand writing which would prove the case of the Appellant/Petitioner that he had no interest in any of the 20 candidates. 13. Lastly, it is the contention on the side of the Appellant that the Syndicate and Senate member as Administrative Committee members involved in increasing 20 number of students of their choice could not be the judge of the case of the Appellant against the Principles of Natural Justice. 14. 13. Lastly, it is the contention on the side of the Appellant that the Syndicate and Senate member as Administrative Committee members involved in increasing 20 number of students of their choice could not be the judge of the case of the Appellant against the Principles of Natural Justice. 14. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to point out that the Appellant/Petitioner in his affidavit had among other things mentioned that during the period of 1986-87, the Vice Chancellor post remained vacant and the Administrative Committee formed by the respondent was administering the responsibilities and that the said Committee appointed a Selection Committee and the Appellant/Petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Appellant/Petitioner and other members of the Selection Committee commenced the process of selection of candidates for Diploma Course in Agriculture for the year 1986-87. In the selection, 80 students were selected after following the procedure. 15. The Administrative Committee prescribed the norms for selection by stating that 200 marks would be awarded for the marks obtained in Plus 2 Examination and 25 marks each for the written test and interview and that no minimum marks or maximum marks were prescribed for selection. It was decided that the students securing first 80 position would be selected. Written test was conducted and the answer papers were valued before the interview. 16. Further, it was also made mention of that the first 80 candidates as per norms were listed and the Appellant along with other members of the Selection Committee proceeded to meet the Chairman of the Administrative Committee for approval of the selection and the Chairman of the Administrative Committee insisted that another 10 candidates should be added to the selection list and he also emphasised the need for above inclusion and informed that they were to be included to accommodate the recommendations of various important persons etc., 17. The then In charge Registrar one Mohedeen took the name of 10 students as per the direction of the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and the said list was handed over to the Appellant. This list of 90 candidates were published and put up on the notice board immediately in the small hours of the day. The then In charge Registrar one Mohedeen took the name of 10 students as per the direction of the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and the said list was handed over to the Appellant. This list of 90 candidates were published and put up on the notice board immediately in the small hours of the day. Latter, in the forenoon, the Appellant was summoned from service by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and required to add 10 more persons to the published list. At that time, the Registrar in charge Mr.R.Subramanian, member of the both the Selection and Administrative Committee and few members of the Administrative were also present. 18. All of a sudden, the Appellant/Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 27.10.1986. The order of suspension mentioned that there were some complaints of serious nature and that there was a prima facie case against the Appellant. One Mr.Rangarajan, was appointed as a Enquiry Officer. But the Appellant/Petitioner was never furnished with any charge sheet and no explanation was sought. The enquiry conducted by the officer was not preceded with any charge sheet etc., The Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry as an investigation and the Enquiry report shows that the Principles of Natural Justice were grossly violated. 19. In the counter, filed by the Registrar of the Respondent/ University, it was stated that the Appellant/Petitioner committed the following malpractices 1 to 6. i) He got various sums of money from 8 students for giving them admission in the Diploma Course in Agriculture. ii) He revised the Selection List from 80 to 90 and then to 100. iii) He revised the waiting list of 45 candidates iv) He substituted the answer books of 18 candidates, so as to enable them to get admission in the course. v) He obtained the signature of the other members of the Selection Committee on blank mark sheets without filling the column showing the marks and thereafter boosted the mars of some candidates and entered the same kin the mark sheets. vi) He received Rs.5000/- from Mr.P.C.Selvaraj for making him permanent in the job. 20. Furthermore, it was stated that the Respondent/University appointed Mr.Rajagopalan, Honorary Project Executive of the Gandhigram Trust to conduct enquiry against the Appellant and the Enquiry Officer was authorised to evolve his own procedure. vi) He received Rs.5000/- from Mr.P.C.Selvaraj for making him permanent in the job. 20. Furthermore, it was stated that the Respondent/University appointed Mr.Rajagopalan, Honorary Project Executive of the Gandhigram Trust to conduct enquiry against the Appellant and the Enquiry Officer was authorised to evolve his own procedure. The Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of persons connected with the malpractices against the Appellant/Petitioner. After recording their evidence, the Enquiry Officer examined the Appellant/Petitioner with reference to their evidence against him. The Enquiry Officer also explained the gist of evidence against the Appellant. The Appellant/Petitioner denied charge Nos.6 and 7. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer accepted the version of the Appellant and absolved him of those charges. 21. In fact, the other charges pertaining to the revision of the selection list and waiting list by increasing their number, the Appellant had accepted the same. However, he submitted his explanation stating that it was done with the consensus of the members of the Selection Committee and the Administrative Committee. In so far as the the substitution of answer books, the Appellant has admitted that he substituted 15 – 20 answer books with the help of the one Mr.T.Rajasekaran, the farm supervisor and the original answer books were destroyed. The exact substitute answer books are 18. 22. The contention of the Appellant/Petitioner was that he substituted the answer books in the guest-house of the University with the knowledge of Prof.Rangarajan, who was the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and thereupon the Enquiry Officer provided an opportunity to him to cross-examine the said Prof.Rangarajan on this aspect. Although two opportunities were provided, the Appellant could not avail the same to cross-examine Prof.Rangarajan. Therefore, the charge of substitution of answer books was held to be proved against the Appellant. 23. Coming to the charge No.5 relating to obtaining the signature of the members of the Selection Committee in blank mark sheets and later on filing the blank mark sheets with boosted marks in respect of some of the candidates, the Appellant/Petitioner admitted the same and stated that he did so to justify their selection. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer gave an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on 09.03.1987 and 23.03.1987 but he refused to come and cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the charge No.5 was also proved against the Appellant. 24. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer gave an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on 09.03.1987 and 23.03.1987 but he refused to come and cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the charge No.5 was also proved against the Appellant. 24. The Respondent/ University on 06.06.1987 sent a letter to the Appellant/writ Petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation for the proved charges of substitution answer books for which the Appellant furnished a reply on 25.06.1987 stating that he was not given any reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer addressed the letter to the Appellant on 26.02.1987 to cross-examine Prof.Rangarajan, but he refused to do so. Again, another opportunity was provided to the Appellant on 23.03.1987, but he refused to avail the same. Likewise, in regard to other charges pertaining to boosting of marks, the Appellant was required to cross-examine Prof.Subramanian on 09.03.1987 and 23.03.1987. But the Appellant had not availed the same. Therefore, the stand of the Appellant that he was not provided with adequate opportunities to defend himself in the Enquiry Proceedings was not correct one. 25. In the counter, the Respondent/University had stated that even in the reply of the Appellant dated 19.08.1987, he had categorically admitted in the following manner:- " In other words, the factual attainment of these candidates in the written test and interview have to be manipulated in such a manner that the total marks obtained by them would bring them within the rank of 100". 26. Continuing further, in regard to the obtaining of the signature of other members in the blank mark sheet, the Appellant had stated as follows: As already explained detail, it was on the final tabulated form and only the columns relating to the mark in interview and written test were not filled. In short, because of these admissions no further proof was required. 27. It is to be pointed out that Admission is the best piece of evidence. The admission must be unequivocal. It is well settled that a partys admission as defined in Section 17 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act fulfilling the requirement of Section 21 is substantive evidence proprie vigore. 28. In fact, an admission is a self harming statement express or implied, oral or written, which is adverse to a partys case. 29. The admission must be unequivocal. It is well settled that a partys admission as defined in Section 17 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act fulfilling the requirement of Section 21 is substantive evidence proprie vigore. 28. In fact, an admission is a self harming statement express or implied, oral or written, which is adverse to a partys case. 29. All the admissions were taken by the Syndicate and according to the statute, it is the duty of the Registrar to act as per the resolutions of the Syndicate and as as such the action of the Registrar in issuing the order of termination is perfectly valid. In support of the contention that the enquiry was to be conducted by following the statutory provisions and also by observing the Principles of Natural Justice, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner cites the decision of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Others V. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 whereby and where under it was observed as follows : An enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which informed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The Authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. " Also in the aforesaid decisions at page 79, it is laid down thus: " Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. " 30. It is to be noted that the term Natural Justice is a form of justice in its abstract moral sense as distinct from the legislation or Statute or a decision by Court of Law. " 30. It is to be noted that the term Natural Justice is a form of justice in its abstract moral sense as distinct from the legislation or Statute or a decision by Court of Law. Natural Justice principles are not the edicts of a Statute. The fairness involves reasonableness and the fairness of procedure in the Departmental Proceeding is the touchstone of the legality. If the administrative orders are reasonable and if they meet the required test of fairness then Court of Law will uphold the said order. 31. While considering the ambit of that reasonableness, the stand of an Administrative action, the decision of Court of Law has a primordial duty, a) To find out if the Administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into consideration irrelevant factors. b) If the decision is not such as so sensible persons could have reasonably arrived at. In fact it not the business of the Court to see out of several options, the Administrator has taken one and left others. Though the name taken by the Administrator may not appeal by the Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, the party seeking to Judicial Review should discharge his burden with evidence in support of his allegations. When they are conspicuously absent unless protected by the proof of presumption, the Court of Law will refuse to examine. The Rules of Natural Justice may also be waived or deemed to have been waived by a person who is in a position to claim observance of these rules as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court rendered in (Manek Lal V. Dr.Prem Chand) reported in AIR 1957 SC 425 . 32. We deem it worth to recall the observance of the Honble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jag Mohan, 1980 4 SCC at Page 379 wherein it is observed that Old distinction between the Judicial Act and Administrative Act has withered away and it was agreed that the administrative decisions can be assailed for want of opportunity to show cause. It was also held that non-observance of Natural Justice was itself a prejudice and proof of prejudice independently or proof of denial of natural justice was unnecessary. Further, in this decision it was suggested that there could be statements where hearing could be legally denied. It was also held that non-observance of Natural Justice was itself a prejudice and proof of prejudice independently or proof of denial of natural justice was unnecessary. Further, in this decision it was suggested that there could be statements where hearing could be legally denied. It was held that "if upon admitted or indisputable facts only when conclusion was possible then, the granting of hearing would not apply 33. As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant/Petitioner in W.P.No.3876 of 1988 had sought direction in the nature of writ of certiorari in calling records of the respondent in Ref.No.435/A2/86-87/2250 dated 30.11.1987 and to quash the same. On going through the order of the Respondent/University in Ref.No.435/A2/86-87/2250 dated 30.11.1987, we are of the considered view that the said letter among other things referred to the Authorities decision to terminate the Appellants services from the staff of the Respondent Institute on and from 30.11.1987 and resultantly, the Appellant was requested to vacate the quarters of the Institute allotted to him and under his occupation and after that the Appellant was directed to come on any day during office hours and after giving a discharge he was directed to receive his emoluments and he was to receive his emoluments that was due to him till the date of this order. 34. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.11.1987 referred to the Appellant/Petitioner misusing his power and authority as a Chairman of Selection Committee for selection of candidates for the Diploma in Agriculture for the year 1986-87 and also clandestinely substituted answer book of 20 candidates and got them wrongfully selected and after that the Appellant had admitted that the above offence of substitution of answer books before the Enquiry Officer and his subsequent explanation was not accepted and the action of Appellant was an malevolent conduct clearly exhibiting his lack of fidelity. 35. The Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on the observations made in paragraph No.35 of decision reported in Union of India and others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 at page 35 wherein it is held as follows:- " In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 at page 35 wherein it is held as follows:- " In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. " 36. Also, the Learned counsel for the Appellant cites the decision of Surat Chandra State of West Bengal AIR 1971 SC 752 whereby it is held that the non furnishing of definite charge sheet together with the allegations was a denial of proper reasonable opportunity to the officer in defending himself. 37. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Clinton (AIR 96 SCC 1623) wherein it is held that the right to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against the delinquent is violable right and the prevention of exercise right effectively would be contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and submitted that in the instant case on hand, there was a negation of Principles of Natural Justice . 38. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner also relies on yet another decision of the Honble Supreme Court State of Gujarat Vs. R.G.Tera Desai, AIR 69 SC 1294 wherein it is held that the supply of mere copy of the enquiry report that the findings of the enquiry in regard to the punishment proposed cannot be said to meet the requirements of law. 39. R.G.Tera Desai, AIR 69 SC 1294 wherein it is held that the supply of mere copy of the enquiry report that the findings of the enquiry in regard to the punishment proposed cannot be said to meet the requirements of law. 39. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and on going through the impugned order of the Respondent in Ref.No. 435/A2/86-87/2250 dated 30.11.1987, we are of the considered opinion that even though the said order styled as termination order, the Appellant/Petitioner was requested to vacate the quarters of the Institute allotted to him which was under his occupation. Even otherwise, the impugned order of the Respondent dated 30.11.1987 had referred to the decision of its Authorities to terminate the Appellants services from the staff of Respondent/Institute on and from 30.11.1987. On the facts and circumstances of the instant case on hand and also because of the clear admissions made by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner which float on the surface, we come to an inevitable conclusion that the writ petition filed by the Appellant is per se not maintainable in law. 40. Moreover, the Appellant/Petitioner could not be heard to say or to make a complaint that there was a negation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Since the decisions were taken by the Syndicate and it is the duty of the Respondent to act in terms of the Resolutions of the Syndicate and viewed in that perspective, we are of the view that the action of the Registrar in issuing the impugned order dated 30.11.1987 was perfectly a valid one. In short, looking at from any angle, we are of the considered view that the writ appeal is devoid of merits and consequently, the writ appeal fails. 41. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.