ORDER In W.P.No.8298 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders of the first respondent dated 06.07.2001 and the second respondent dated 20.03.2002. In W.P.No.1952 of 2006, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 22.12.2005. 2. The petitioner initially was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent University and subsequently, she was promoted as Assistant Section Officer. The allegation against the petitioner is that she collected chit funds from the employees of the University and refused to repay the same. She was issued a charge memo dated 05.12.2000 for violation of the provisions of the Bharathiyar University Employees Conduct Rules informing as follows: "(1) the act of collecting money or personal borrowing among the co-staff is violation of statute 15(3)(i) under Chapter XVIII of Bharathiar University i.e. she should show courtesy and attention in all transactions and not to do anything which is unbecoming of a University employee. (2) inspite of the warning issued vide Memo.No.E3/2000 dated 18.5.2000 she did not stop above activities which is a violation of statute 15(2)(i)(c) and (d) i.e. conform to and abide by the rules and regulations and comply with and obey all lawful orders and directions." 3. In response, the petitioner submitted a written statement of defence on 10.01.2001 informing that she had not conducted any chit fund at any point of time but some of the staff members of the University had made allegations against her without any proof. She informed that as she had not run any chit fund, there was no question of stopping the activities or disobeying the warning memo. Not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation, a retired District Judge, was appointed as Domestic Enquiry Officer, who commenced enquiry on 27.03.2001. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry and has given her explanation. The enquiry officer, after examination of 22 witnesses and receipt of evidence, filed an enquiry report dated 01.06.2001 holding the charges proved. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent passed final orders on 06.07.2001 and imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect from 06.07.2001. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed by the second respondent vide order dated 20.03.2002. Hence, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.8298 of 2003 challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 4. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed by the second respondent vide order dated 20.03.2002. Hence, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.8298 of 2003 challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 4. The petitioner and another filed W.P.No.13287 of 1993 before this Court challenging the promotion given to the respondents 2 to 6 therein, who are their juniors and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to promote them to the cadre of Superintendent. The same was allowed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, during the punishment period, the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer by order dated 30.07.2001. By an order dated 22.12.2005, impugned in W.P.No.1952 of 2006, the petitioner was demoted as Assistant Section Officer and recovery of excess salary and other benefits also was ordered on the ground that the petitioner would not be entitled to promotion during the punishment period and five years thereafter. 5. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 6. Though several submissions have been made by learned senior counsel for petitioner as also learned counsel for respondents, this Court finds it necessary not to go into the rival submissions and that it would suffice to inform as follows: Finding much wrong in the conduct of enquiry, this Court expressed the view that the present would be a fit case to award heavy costs to the petitioner. An opportunity was afforded to the respondents to afford redress to her. The response of the respondents has been to effect change of counsel. 7. A perusal of the records reveals the following: 8. We found that almost all the representations against the petitioner were in cyclostyle form and uniform in content. This position reflects pre-determination of mind. The presence of neither acknowledgment nor affixture of University seal on several of the representations only renders them more doubtful. Further, though the enquiry proceedings have commenced on 27.03.2001, several representations of subsequent dates viz., 09.04.2001, 10.04.2001 and 12.04.2001, again in cyclostyle form and of uniform content, have been marked through witnesses. This offends the principles of natural justice. The observations of lack of acknowledgment and absence of University seal also hold good. 9. Further, though the enquiry proceedings have commenced on 27.03.2001, several representations of subsequent dates viz., 09.04.2001, 10.04.2001 and 12.04.2001, again in cyclostyle form and of uniform content, have been marked through witnesses. This offends the principles of natural justice. The observations of lack of acknowledgment and absence of University seal also hold good. 9. Finding the orders under challenge in W.P.No.8298 of 2003 a result of pre-determined enquiry in violation of rules of natural justice, W.P.No.8298 of 2003 shall stand allowed and the orders under challenge shall stand quashed. W.P.No.1952 of 2006 would have to be allowed as a mere consequence of allowing W.P.No.8298 of 2003. Even otherwise, W.P.No.1952 of 2006 would have to be allowed for the reason that the petitioner would be entitled to the salary and other benefits attached to the office of Section Officer during the period she held such post. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. The respondent University is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the petitioner within two weeks of this date.