Judgment : 1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Director (in the Grade of Professor) in the Department of Women's Studies in the Bharathidasan University on 18.3.2005. In June 2010, a Committee was constituted for reviewing the functioning of the Department of Women's Studies. The said Committee submitted its report on 1.2.2012. The report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 4.2.2012. The Syndicate appears to have authorised the Vice-Chancellor to take appropriate action and the Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 4.2.2012, placing the writ petitioner under suspension. 2. The Tamil Nadu Federation of Universities Faculty Association, Madurai gave a representation to His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, who is also the Chancellor of the University, against the suspension of the writ petitioner. The petitioner herself also addressed a representation on 7.2.2012 to the Governor. 3. On both the said representations, the Governor-Chancellor appears to have passed an order, directing the Vice-Chancellor to revoke the suspension. The decision of the Governor-Chancellor was communicated by the Secretary to Governor by a letter dated 9.2.2012. This letter contained the reasons for the extraordinary decision taken by the Governor-Chancellor. It was stated in the said letter that certain points needed clarification. They were:- (i) The rationale behind bringing the subject as a table agenda in the Syndicate meeting; (ii) The details of show cause notice, not mentioned in the proceedings; (iii) The copy of the Audit Report of the Concurrent Audit Unit and Local Fund Audit Department had to be verified to know the genuineness; (iv) The copy of the Review Committee Report to be examined; and (v) The details of the constitution of the Enquiry Committee, not seen in the proceedings. 4. Immediately upon receipt of the communication dated 9.2.2012 from the Governor-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor passed an order dated 13.2.2012, revoking the suspension and permitting the petitioner to join as Professor and as Director in the Department of Women's Studies. But by the same proceedings, the Vice-Chancellor transferred the petitioner as Professor in the Department of Economics, without affecting her monetary benefits. On the same day, the Registrar passed an order giving effect to the transfer of the petitioner to the Department of Economics. 5. But by the same proceedings, the Vice-Chancellor transferred the petitioner as Professor in the Department of Economics, without affecting her monetary benefits. On the same day, the Registrar passed an order giving effect to the transfer of the petitioner to the Department of Economics. 5. Therefore, the petitioner came up with the first writ petition in W.P.No.2922 of 2012, challenging the order of transfer dated 13.2.2012 and also praying for a direction to the respondents to restore her to her original position as Director of Women's Studies. On 9.3.2012, notice was ordered in the said writ petition. 6. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed a representation before the Governor-Chancellor. But the Vice-Chancellor also kept sending communications to the Governor-Chancellor claiming that the petitioner was guilty of several acts of omission and commission. Therefore, the Governor-Chancellor appears to have directed the University to arrange to have an enquiry conducted by a retired District Judge. Therefore, by a letter dated 19.6.2012, the Secretary to the Governor, directed the Vice-Chancellor to arrange for the conduct of an enquiry by a retired District Judge, to look into the issue, instead of proceeding with the enquiry by the Review/Expert Committee. By the same letter, the Vice-Chancellor was also directed to re-transfer the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies, without prejudice to the enquiry. 7. In pursuance of the said order, the Syndicate passed a resolution on 20.6.2012, restoring the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies as a Professor, though not as a Director. In pursuance of the said resolution, the Vice-Chancellor also passed a consequential order. Interestingly, the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 22.6.2012 proceeded on the basis as though disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. But no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner till then and what had already been ordered was only a review of the functioning of the Department and by the order of the Governor dated 19.6.2012, the Review Committee was to be replaced by a retired District Judge. However, the Vice-Chancellor construed the same as disciplinary proceedings. 8. Subsequently, by an order dated 4.10.2012, the Vice-Chancellor appointed a retired District Judge by name K.Nazir Ahamed, to conduct an enquiry. The said District Judge appears to have gone through the records and submitted the report on 28.11.2012. However, the Vice-Chancellor construed the same as disciplinary proceedings. 8. Subsequently, by an order dated 4.10.2012, the Vice-Chancellor appointed a retired District Judge by name K.Nazir Ahamed, to conduct an enquiry. The said District Judge appears to have gone through the records and submitted the report on 28.11.2012. The report of the retired District Judge was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate passed a resolution on 8.12.2012, authorising the Vice-Chancellor to take immediate action on the report, after providing a copy of the report to the petitioner. 9. On the basis of the resolution of the Syndicate, the Vice-Chancellor issued a memo dated 14.12.2012, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within 15 days on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, challenging the memo dated 14.12.2012 as well as the enquiry report, the petitioner came up with the second writ petition viz., W.P.No.16825 of 2012. 10. The second writ petition came up for orders as to admission before me on 20.12.2012. At that time, the learned counsel appearing for the University took notice and requested me that the first writ petition should also be tagged along with the second one. Therefore, both writ petitions were tagged together and the respondents filed their counter affidavits. 11. Thereafter, arguments were heard in the miscellaneous petitions for interim stay of further proceedings on 28.1.2013 at Madurai and I reserved orders in the interim applications. My tenure at the Madurai Bench came to an end within 2 days on 1.2.2013. 12. At Chennai, the learned counsel for the respondents made a mention, requesting me to reopen the matter on the ground that the learned Senior Counsel engaged by the respondents wanted to make submissions on the prayers for interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted no objections. 13. Therefore, the miscellaneous petitions, which were heard at Madurai and where orders were reserved, were reopened to enable the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents to make submissions. However, while making submissions, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that since the arguments in the miscellaneous petitions would be the same, as the arguments in the main writ petition itself, this Court would as well dispose of the main writ petitions instead of dealing with the miscellaneous petitions. 14. Therefore, I have heard Ms. U.Nirmala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 14. Therefore, I have heard Ms. U.Nirmala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on behalf of Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel and Mr. J.Anandakumar, learned counsel for the third respondent. 15. As pointed out earlier, the prayer in the first writ petition is to set aside an order dated 13.2.2012, by which the petitioner was transferred to the post of Professor of the Department of Economics. But during the pendency of the first writ petition, the petitioner was re-transferred back to the Department of Women's Studies. Therefore, it is contended by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that nothing survives for adjudication in the first writ petition. But, according to Ms.Nirmala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents ought to have posted her back as the Director of Department of Women's Studies and not as a mere Professor. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grievance of the petitioner in the first writ petition is not fully redressed. 16. In order to find out whether anything survives for adjudication in the first writ petition, we must look at 3 orders viz., (i) the order dated 13.2.2012, revoking the suspension (ii) the second order dated 13.2.2012, transferring the petitioner and (iii) the third order dated 22.6.2012, by which the petitioner was permitted to join as Professor. 17. The operative portion of the first order dated 13.2.2012, reads as follows:- "Now, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathidasan University hereby revokes the said order of suspension of Dr.N.Manimekalai and she is permitted to join as Professor and Director of Department of Women's Studies." 18. The second order dated 13.2.2012, reads as follows:- "It is hereby informed that Dr.N.Manimekalai is relieved from her duties as Professor, Head and Director, Department of Women's Studies of Bharathidasan University, Khajamalai Campus, Tiruchirapalli-620 023, on 13.2.2012 Afternoon, so as to enable her to join as Professor in the Department of Economics, Bharathidasan University, Khajamalai Campus, Tiruchirapalli-620 023, since she had been transferred vide proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor in the reference under first cited." 19. Interestingly, the first order dated 13.2.2012, was passed by the Vice-Chancellor herself and it was addressed to the petitioner. But the second order dated 13.2.2012 was issued by the Registrar. In the reference first cited in the second order dated 13.2.2012, the Registrar referred to the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated 13.2.2012. Interestingly, the first order dated 13.2.2012, was passed by the Vice-Chancellor herself and it was addressed to the petitioner. But the second order dated 13.2.2012 was issued by the Registrar. In the reference first cited in the second order dated 13.2.2012, the Registrar referred to the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated 13.2.2012. But the said proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated 13.2.2012 is not found in the records filed by the respondents. On the other hand, the respondents have filed a letter dated 13.2.2012, sent by the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The said letter dated 13.2.2012 reads as follows:- "With reference to the above letter, in obedience to the direction from His Excellency, the Chancellor of Bharathidasan University, the suspension order of Dr.N.Manimekalai has been revoked and she is permitted to join as Professor and Director in the Department of Women's Studies. The copy of the order of Revocation is enclosed for your reference. As per the provisions made in the Bharathidasan University Statutes under Chapter II(a) The Vice-Chancellor(3)(i): Dr. N. Manimekalai is temporarily transferred as Professor in the Department of Economics (without affecting her monetary benefits) till the detailed examination is over at Governor's Secretariat. In view of the reason, if the delinquent faculty Dr.N.Manimekalai continues in the same position would involve in tampering of records and hindrance to the further detailed proceedings. Further, Dr.N.Murugeshwari, Associate Professor, Department of Women's Studies now made as Director and Head In-charge of the Department of Women's Studies, as per the provisions made in the Bharathidasan University Statutes under Chapter II(a) The Vice-Chancellor (3)(6) and (3)(9)." 20. Interestingly, the Official Memorandum of the Registrar dated 13.2.2012, which I have chosen to describe as the second order dated 13.2.2012, does not contain a reference to the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary to the Governor. But in the reference first cited, the Official Memorandum dated 13.2.2012 refers to the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor in R.C. No.H1/TE-Estt./004324/2012. This reference does not find a place in the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary to Governor. But even in the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the Governor, the Vice-Chancellor has indicated that the writ petitioner has been temporarily transferred as Professor in the Department of Economics. This reference does not find a place in the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary to Governor. But even in the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the Governor, the Vice-Chancellor has indicated that the writ petitioner has been temporarily transferred as Professor in the Department of Economics. The letter also states that one Dr.N.Murugeshwari, Associate Professor of the Department of Women's Studies has been made as Director and Head In-charge of the Department of Women's Studies. 21. Therefore, it is clear from the Official Memorandum dated 13.2.2012 issued by the Registrar and the letter dated 13.2.2012 sent by the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary to Governor that all orders dated 13.2.2012 had been passed not necessarily in the chronological order. Hence it appears that even without the Vice-Chancellor issuing a communication to the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor sent a letter to the Governor about her transfer. Keeping this in mind, let us now see the order dated 22.6.2012, reinstating the petitioner into the Department of Women's Studies:- "WHEREAS an order under reference 1st cited, Dr.N.Manimekalai, Professor and Head, Department of Women's Studies, Bharathidasan University, Khajamalai Campus, Tiruchirappalli-620 023, was temporarily transferred to the Department of Economics as Professor in the Department of Economics (without affecting her monetary benefits) pending detailed examination of the issue at Governor's Secretariat and further orders of His Excellency, the Chancellor without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against Dr.N.Manimekalai. NOW, THEREFORE, as per the direction of the Governor-Chancellor vide the letter of the Secretary to Governor (Letter No.575/U2/2011 dated 19.6.2012), the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathidasan University hereby modify the said order of transfer of Dr.N.Manimekalai and permitted her to join in the Department of Women's Studies, Bharathidasan University, Khajamalai Campus, Tiruchirappalli-620 023 as Professor with immediate effect, under the headship of Dr.N.Murugeswari, Associate Professor acting as Head In-charge to the Department of Women's Studies, since disciplinary proceedings is pending against Dr.N.Manimekalai and her re-transfer is without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated and enquiry to be ordered against the said delinquent Dr.N.Manimekalai." 22. A reading of the second paragraph of the proceedings dated 22.6.2012, would show that the petitioner was re-transferred back as Professor, but not as Head and Director of the Department. On the other hand, an Assistant Professor, who belongs to the next below cadre, has been made as Head In-charge of the Department. A reading of the second paragraph of the proceedings dated 22.6.2012, would show that the petitioner was re-transferred back as Professor, but not as Head and Director of the Department. On the other hand, an Assistant Professor, who belongs to the next below cadre, has been made as Head In-charge of the Department. Therefore, it is clear that the order of the Governor-Chancellor had not been complied with in letter and spirit by the Chancellor. The letter of the Secretary to Governor dated 19.6.2012 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, reads as follows:- "I am, by direction of His Excellency the Governor-Chancellor, to inform that Bharathidasan University may arrange to conduct an enquiry by a retired District Judge to look into the issue, instead of proceeding with the enquiry by the Review/Expert Committee and Prof. Manimekalai may be transferred back to the Department of Women Studies, without prejudice to the enquiry to be ordered." 23. As seen from the letter of the Secretary to Governor, the order of the Governor-Chancellor was to transfer the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies. Therefore, the petitioner should have been put back into her original position. But the Vice-Chancellor chose merely to re-transfer the petitioner as Professor and allowed an Assistant Professor to be the Head In-charge of the Department. In such circumstances, it is not correct to contend that nothing survives for adjudication in the first writ petition. So long as the order of the Governor, directing the petitioner to be re-transferred back to the Department had not been complied in letter and spirit, the grievance of the petitioner in the first writ petition cannot be stated to have been redressed fully. 24. The order merely transferring the petitioner to be as Professor and not putting her as Head and Director, also suffers from a fallacy. The fallacy is in the presumption indicated in the order dated 22.6.2012 that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings, at the most, could be stated to be contemplated against the petitioner, but not pending. The order dated 22.6.2012 states that the disciplinary proceedings are pending as well as contemplated. 25. I am not for a moment suggesting that the wrong wording of the order dated 22.6.2012 vitiated the order. I am just testing the first contention of the respondents as to whether W.P.No.2922 of 2012 had become infructuous or not. The order dated 22.6.2012 states that the disciplinary proceedings are pending as well as contemplated. 25. I am not for a moment suggesting that the wrong wording of the order dated 22.6.2012 vitiated the order. I am just testing the first contention of the respondents as to whether W.P.No.2922 of 2012 had become infructuous or not. It has not become infructuous. The order of the Governor has not been obeyed in letter and spirit. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get back to the post of Head and Director still survives for consideration and I shall get into that question, while dealing with the merits. 26. Once it is found that both writ petitions survive for adjudication, it is necessary to get into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, let me now take up for consideration the grounds on which the petitioner challenges (i) the order of transfer and (ii) the show cause notice and the enquiry report. 27. The common ground of challenge to the entire set of actions initiated by the Vice-Chancellor is that the Vice-Chancellor has been inimically opposed to the petitioner. In other words, the actions taken by the Vice-Chancellor are termed as a product of malice. 28. As mala fides is a serious allegation, the petitioner has impleaded the Vice-Chancellor, by name, as a party and has alleged several incidents in paragraph-7 of her affidavit in support of the writ petition. In brief, the allegations found in paragraph-7 are as follows:- (i) In the year 2001, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was raised by the Vice-Chancellor for printing certain brochures. The printing was later undertaken by the Registry. However, a Bill for Rs.1,35,000/- was sent to the Department of Women's Studies. When the petitioner protested that the Bill was inflated, the third respondent called the petitioner and threatened her with dire consequences. Unable to withstand the pressure, the petitioner sent a fresh proposal and the second respondent constituted a Syndicate Sub Committee. The petitioner insisted upon the Syndicate Sub Committee recording her objections. This infuriated the third respondent. (ii) The petitioner opposed the appointment of one Dr.N.Murugeshwari as Assistant Professor in February 2011 in the Department of Women's Studies. But the third respondent went ahead with the appointment of Dr.N.Murugeshwari, though she was not qualified as per UGC guidelines. The petitioner insisted upon the Syndicate Sub Committee recording her objections. This infuriated the third respondent. (ii) The petitioner opposed the appointment of one Dr.N.Murugeshwari as Assistant Professor in February 2011 in the Department of Women's Studies. But the third respondent went ahead with the appointment of Dr.N.Murugeshwari, though she was not qualified as per UGC guidelines. (iii) The Department of Women's Studies is located in two buildings in Khajamalai Campus of the University. But the rooms in the possession of the Department were taken one after another under some pretext or the other. On 7.3.2011, the wash room attached to the Office of the petitioner was razed to the ground and the files and furniture of the petitioner's Office were dislocated. This was done by the Estate Office of the University at the behest of the third respondent, at the time when the petitioner was sharing the dais with the second respondent in the main University campus on the occasion of the International Women's Day. Again in the second week of May 2011, between 7th and 14th May, an eviction drive was undertaken when the petitioner was away in France and Spain for attending an International Seminar. This resulted in the entire Department completely getting paralysed for about 3 months without even drinking water. (iv) The Office room of the petitioner was converted into a camp Office and when a Press Reporter questioned it, the second respondent converted it into a Campus Office. (v) The second respondent gained an impression that the petitioner was instrumental for the probe by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption into the irregularities in the University in the matter of recruitments. 29. The respondents 1 and 2 have jointly filed a counter affidavit. Since the third respondent is impleaded in her personal capacity, she has chosen to file a separate counter affidavit. But, unfortunately, the third respondent has not chosen to deal with the specific averments made against her in the writ petition. As pointed out by me, the allegations of mala fides are listed by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of her affidavit. The third respondent simply brushed aside the allegations in one sentence as false. 30. But, unfortunately, the third respondent has not chosen to deal with the specific averments made against her in the writ petition. As pointed out by me, the allegations of mala fides are listed by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of her affidavit. The third respondent simply brushed aside the allegations in one sentence as false. 30. In paragraph-3 of her counter affidavit, the third respondent has stated as follows:- "The allegations in paragraph 7 and the incident mentioned therein are a typical example of the petitioner's imagination giving different colour to the official act done by me." 31. In paragraph 4 of her counter affidavit, the third respondent has stated as follows:- "I submit that I deny the allegations in para 7 to 10 as false and petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. A bare perusal of contents of paragraphs will establish the ulterior motive of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition with unnecessary personal allegations against me. All acts done in good faith, which is ended against petitioner, given a colour of bias to escape from the clutches of enquiry contemplated." 32. In other words, the third respondent has not chosen to deal with each one of the allegations made by the petitioner. On the contrary, the Registrar of the University has chosen to deal with each one of them separately. From paragraphs 8 to 14 of his counter affidavit, the Registrar of the University has dealt with each and every allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of her own affidavit. 33. Though some of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit of the writ petitioner, are capable of being dealt with by the official respondents viz., respondents 1 and 2, some of the averments are capable of being met only by the third respondent. For instance, the averment of the writ petitioner, whether it is true or false, in paragraph 7A and 7B are very personal as against the third respondent. Therefore, they could not have been replied to by the official respondents. The official respondents are capable of answering the averments, only to the extent of what is reflected in the records. For instance, the averment of the writ petitioner, whether it is true or false, in paragraph 7A and 7B are very personal as against the third respondent. Therefore, they could not have been replied to by the official respondents. The official respondents are capable of answering the averments, only to the extent of what is reflected in the records. But the allegation that the third respondent called the petitioner and asked her to raise a new Bill and that she called upon the petitioner not to give any press interview etc., are all personal, which the Registrar may not be in a position to deal with at all. But, unfortunately, he has chosen to take cudgels for the third respondent and deal with even those allegations in his counter. 34. Keeping aside those averments for a moment, let me check up whether the action initiated by the respondents could have been a product of malice or not, from the facts and circumstances themselves. Many times events speak more eloquently about the intention of the parties than the parties themselves could articulate. Therefore, le me have a look at a sequence of events:- (i) The petitioner was originally appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Economics, in the first respondent-University in 1992. (ii) By a resolution dated 17.12.2004, the Syndicate of the University resolved, with the approval of UGC, to create a Centre for Women's Studies during the 10th Plan and one post of Director, 2 posts of Lecturers, 3 posts of Documentation Assistants and 4 posts of Junior Research Fellowship were sanctioned for the Centre. (iii) Through advertisement in newspapers, applications were invited for appointment to various posts, including the post of Director of the Centre for Women's Studies in the cadre of Professor. The petitioner applied in response to the newspaper advertisement. By an order dated 18.3.2005, the petitioner was appointed as a Director (Professor Cadre) in the Centre for Women's Studies. It was a direct recruitment made to a new post for the first time. The appointment was not by way of promotion from the post which the applicant held in the Department of Economics. Consequently, the petitioner was placed on probation, under the order of appointment dated 18.3.2005. She was even asked to produce a medical fitness certificate. It was a direct recruitment made to a new post for the first time. The appointment was not by way of promotion from the post which the applicant held in the Department of Economics. Consequently, the petitioner was placed on probation, under the order of appointment dated 18.3.2005. She was even asked to produce a medical fitness certificate. (iv) Since the appointment was by way of direct recruitment to a newly created post in a newly created Department, the petitioner got herself relieved from the Department of Economics, where she was working as a Reader. In other words, the lien that the petitioner had in the post of Reader in the Department of Economics was severed and her umbilical card was severed with the Department of Economics on and from 21.3.2005. (v) By the order dated 4.2.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension. (vi) By the first order dated 13.2.2012, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated as Professor and Director in the Department of Women's Studies. (vii) By the next order of the same date viz., 13.2.2012, the petitioner was transferred as Professor in the Department of Economics. This was despite the fact that the petitioner's lien in the Department of Economics had already been severed. Moreover, as on 21.3.2005, when the lien of the petitioner was severed from the Department of Economics, she was holding the post of Reader and not Professor. Therefore, by the second order dated 13.2.2012, the petitioner was actually posted to a Department from which her lien has been severed 7 years ago and was assigned a designation that was also not the one which she was holding on the date of termination of lien. (viii) After the Governor-Chancellor directed the re-transfer of the petitioner back to the Centre for Women's Studies, the Vice-Chancellor put the petitioner back into the Department of Women's Studies. But even while doing so, the Vice-Chancellor restored her only as Professor and made the petitioner to work under an Assistant Professor by name Dr.N.Murugeshwari, who was put In-charge as Head of the Department. Interestingly, the order of His Excellency the Governor was only to re-transfer the petitioner back. But while complying with the said order, the Vice-Chancellor reinstated her only as a Professor and made an Assistant Professor as the Head of the Department In-charge. Interestingly, the order of His Excellency the Governor was only to re-transfer the petitioner back. But while complying with the said order, the Vice-Chancellor reinstated her only as a Professor and made an Assistant Professor as the Head of the Department In-charge. What is more interesting is the fact that the Assistant Professor, who was made Head of the Department In-charge, is the very same person for whose appointment, the petitioner had objected on the ground of lack of qualifications. 35. The above sequence of events show that even if I give the benefit of doubt to the third respondent on the allegations of mala fides, it is impossible to ignore the manner in which the third respondent had acted even after the orders of His Excellency the Governor. Therefore, a clear case of malice is made out by the petitioner against the third respondent by the following:- (i) The vague and overall denial of specific averments of mala fides made by the petitioner against the third respondent. (ii) The transfer of the petitioner to the Department of Economics, despite the fact that the petitioner was directly recruited to the post of Professor in Head of the Department of the Department of Women's Studies. (iii) The re-transfer of the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies, only as a Professor and not as the Head. (iv) The posting of an Assistant Professor as the Head of the Department of Women's Studies, so that she will be administratively superior to the petitioner. (v) The Assistant Professor posted as the Head of the Department above the writ petitioner is the very same person whose appointment was questioned by the writ petitioner even in the first writ petition. 36. Therefore, the first writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner entitled to be posted as the Head of the Department of Women's Studies. 37. Coming to the next writ petition, the same is against a show cause notice issued by the second respondent, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. 36. Therefore, the first writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner entitled to be posted as the Head of the Department of Women's Studies. 37. Coming to the next writ petition, the same is against a show cause notice issued by the second respondent, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The primary grounds on which the same is challenged, apart from the ground of mala fides, are (i) that though the enquiry supposed to be conducted was in the place of a Review Committee, the track of the enquiry was completely changed, so as to target the petitioner as a delinquent as though she had committed some irregularities; (ii) that the Enquiry Officer also went off the track and recorded baseless findings, which were not within the scope of enquiry; and (iii) that the Enquiry Officer failed to take into account important aspects. 38. In response to the above contentions, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, contended that the second writ petition is not even maintainable in law. The appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the reference made to him by the Governor/Chancellor was not challenged by the petitioner and hence, it is not open to the petitioner now to question the very validity of the enquiry. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the report of the Enquiry Officer is only in the nature of a preliminary report and that it is therefore, highly premature on the part of the petitioner to challenge the same. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned show cause notice merely calls upon her to file a reply to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If the reply is satisfactory, there would be no further proceedings. If the reply is found to be not satisfactory, the University would only initiate disciplinary proceedings. This according to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, would not in any way prejudice the petitioner. Moreover, the tenure of the third respondent has already expired and hence, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the University will take an objective view of the whole matter. 39. I have carefully considered the above submissions. This according to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, would not in any way prejudice the petitioner. Moreover, the tenure of the third respondent has already expired and hence, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the University will take an objective view of the whole matter. 39. I have carefully considered the above submissions. As I have indicated earlier, the main grounds of attack of the writ petitioner in the second writ petition are 3 fold namely (i) that the very reference to the Enquiry Officer was vitiated; (ii) that the Enquiry Officer also exceeded his brief; and (iii) that the Enquiry Officer recorded findings without any reference to the records. Let me first take up these contentions for consideration. 40. If we go back to the stage at which the whole dispute started, it could be seen that a Review Committee was constituted way back in 2010 for reviewing the ongoing activities and the functioning of the Department of Women's Studies. Admittedly, this Review Committee was constituted by the Syndicate not merely for the review of the functioning of the Department of Women's Studies, but also for reviewing the functioning of other Centres such as Bharathidasan University Technology Park, Business Development Cell, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Career Development Cell. The letter dated 9.4.2012, sent by the third respondent, shows that the petitioner herself was nominated as one of the members of the Review Committee. If the Review Committee was constituted for the purpose of finding out the irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner, she could not have been made a party. 41. The letter dated 19.6.2012, issued by the Governor's Secretariat to the second respondent, permitted the second respondent to have an enquiry conducted by a retired District Judge, instead of proceeding with the enquiry by the Review/Expert Committee. Therefore, it is clear that the Review Committee was replaced by the District Judge and hence, his terms of reference cannot be completely different from the terms of reference of the Review Committee. 42. Keeping the above in mind, if we have a look at the letter of appointment dated 4.10.2012, issued to the retired District Judge, it is seen that what was referred to the District Judge was completely different. 42. Keeping the above in mind, if we have a look at the letter of appointment dated 4.10.2012, issued to the retired District Judge, it is seen that what was referred to the District Judge was completely different. It is stated by the second respondent in the said letter that the Governor/ Chancellor had directed the University to conduct an enquiry "to look into the issue of disciplinary proceedings contemplated against" the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that instead of replacing the Review Committee with a retired District Judge, to carryout the same tasks, the second respondent appointed a retired District Judge to look into the issue of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference itself was bad, is well founded. 43. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the erroneous reference made to him, the Enquiry Officer also exceeded his brief. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the very report of the Enquiry Officer. 44. To test the correctness of the above contention, it is necessary to see the discussion as well as the ultimate findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. For easy appreciation, they are presented in a tabular form:- Sl.No Discussion Findings 1. The Stock Register in the Department of Women's Studies not maintained properly and the writ petitioner had not countersigned every item of purchase. The stock entries were not made in the chronological order. From the above entries, it appears that there is a dereliction of duty on the part of Dr.N.Manimekalai, Director/Professor of the Department of Women's Studies, Bharathidasan University in non-maintaining the Stock Register properly. 2. On certain days viz., 3.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and 12.10.2011, the writ petitioner signed the Attendance Register. But she had made outstation trips by hiring call taxies and also claiming the amounts spent. Therefore, she could not have gone to those places by call taxi. So, it appears that she has forged the above documents to be used to encash the amounts mentioned in the bills obtained. 3. Two accounts are maintained, but no Account Book, Ledger Book, Cheque Receipt Register, Cheque Issue Register are maintained. Payments and deposits have been made indiscriminately on many occasions. In the absence of Account Book, Cheque Issue Register, the correctness of these transactions could not be verified. 3. Two accounts are maintained, but no Account Book, Ledger Book, Cheque Receipt Register, Cheque Issue Register are maintained. Payments and deposits have been made indiscriminately on many occasions. In the absence of Account Book, Cheque Issue Register, the correctness of these transactions could not be verified. From the above discrepancies in the cheque counter foil, Bank book, it appears that Dr.N.Manimekalai not only committed dereliction of duty in non-maintaining the proper account book, ledger book, cheque receipt and cheque issue register for the Department of Women's Studies, but also committed of misappropriation of the amount as above. 4. There are 7 blank bills, which do not contain details of purchased articles. On perusal of the above blank bills, it appears that Dr.N.Manimekalai has kept the same in her custody for submission as vouchers by filling the amount at her discretion and thereby to Misappropriate that amount. 5. For the training programmes conducted under agreements dated 12.5.2008 and 12.1.2010 with ILFS, the writ petitioner was to pay Rs.1,000/- to the trainees and maintain a separate account. But the petitioner did not maintain proper account. She used to submit bills for adjustment belatedly. Though acknowledgment was obtained from trainees as though Rs.1,000/- was paid, a sum of Rs.500/- alone was paid. So from the above details, it appears that Dr.N.Manimekalai has forged the acknowledgments for Rs.1,000/- from each trainee but actually made payments of Rs.500/- for each trainee, that she temporary misappropriated Rs.12,500 + Rs.14,500 = Rs.27,000/- and that she misappropriated Rs.2,000/- by nonremitting the undisbursed amount relating the 14th batch. 6. The audit slip issued by the Assistant Director of Audit, concurrent audit shows that the writ petitioner committed serious financial irregularities by preparing improper expenditure vouchers for the year 2010-2011 and2011-2012. Nil 7. Some bills for expenditure incurred by the writ petitioner, do not contain TIN or TNGST numbers and some bills are on letter heads rather than in bill format. From the above bills, it appears that Dr.N.Manimekalai, Director/Professor Department of Women's Studies, Bharathidasan University has committed misappropriation of the amount found in the above bills totaling Rs.1,04,407/- by submitting improper and ineligible bills. 45. A careful perusal of the discussion and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer would show that there has been a complete lack of objectivity in the whole exercise. 45. A careful perusal of the discussion and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer would show that there has been a complete lack of objectivity in the whole exercise. This can be seen from the following:- (i) Merely because every item of purchase is not countersigned by the petitioner in the Stock Register and merely because the stock entries are not made in the chronological order, the Enquiry Officer comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. The Enquiry Officer has not gone into the list of duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner as the Director and Head of the Department before coming to the said conclusion. (ii) The fact that the petitioner made outstation trips on 3.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and 12.10.2011 in hired vehicles and also claimed expenses towards the same, shows that she was actually on duty. Therefore, she is deemed to have attended office on those days. A person who goes out of station on duty is obviously entitled to treat the same as a working day. The Enquiry Officer has not appreciated even this fundamental aspect. (iii) After having stated in respect of the third issue, that in the absence of account book and cheque issue register, the correctness of the transactions could not be verified, the Enquiry Officer has come to a strange conclusion that the petitioner had committed misappropriation of the amount. It is very surprising that a finding of misappropriation can be recorded against someone, by a retired District Judge, after holding that the correctness of the transactions could not be verified by him in the absence of certain records. (iv) In so far as the finding on issue No.6 is concerned, the writ petitioner has produced the concerned audit slip No.5/2010-2011. All that the audit slip says is that the genuineness of the vouchers should be verified and the result reported to audit. Though the audit had made it clear that the genuineness of the vouchers was not ascertained in audit, they nevertheless made a remark that "there may be financial irregularities". Unfortunately, without understanding that the observation contained in the audit slip was only a qualified one, the Enquiry Officer simply concluded that there were financial irregularities. 46. What is worse is the fact that the Enquiry Officer did not even seek any clarification from the writ petitioner on any issue. Unfortunately, without understanding that the observation contained in the audit slip was only a qualified one, the Enquiry Officer simply concluded that there were financial irregularities. 46. What is worse is the fact that the Enquiry Officer did not even seek any clarification from the writ petitioner on any issue. This was necessary in view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer was appointed only in the place of the previous Review Committee. The petitioner was a member of the Review Committee. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer, even if he did not wish to associate the petitioner with the enquiry, could have at least sought clarifications on certain issues, on which he has recorded that there were no materials, but on which he has nevertheless pronounced the petitioner guilty. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer exceeded his brief, is also well founded. 47. The third contention of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record findings, without any basis from the records. This contention also appears to be well founded. It could be seen from the tabular statement given above, that wherever the Enquiry Officer could not get hold of the records, he simply pronounced the petitioner guilty of forgery, misappropriation and dereliction of duty. The findings are so serious in nature that they could not have been recorded without even a semblance of proof from the records. Therefore, I am of the view that all the 3 contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner merit acceptance. 48. However, I should also deal with a very serious objection taken by Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. As contended by him, the report of the Enquiry Officer is only a preliminary report and the petitioner in normal circumstances should only give a reply and await further action. Even if her reply is not accepted, no adverse consequence, except the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would fall on the petitioner. 49. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with a preliminary enquiry report and a show cause notice, is extremely circumscribed. Unless they suffer from want of jurisdiction, this Court will be hesitant to interfere. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the situation in the University that drove the petitioner to this Court in 2012, does not continue to exist. Unless they suffer from want of jurisdiction, this Court will be hesitant to interfere. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the situation in the University that drove the petitioner to this Court in 2012, does not continue to exist. The third respondent has already demitted office. A new Vice-Chancellor has not so far been appointed. It appears that the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, is acting as the Chairman of the Convening Committee, discharging the functions of the Vice-Chancellor, pending the selection of one to the post. Therefore, I am of the view that instead of setting aside the show cause notice and the preliminary enquiry report, a direction could be issued to the Law Secretary to consider the report along with the objections of the writ petitioner and the observations contained in this order and to take a decision in an objective manner, within a time frame. 50. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of to the following effect:- (i) The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to the post of Director and Head of the Department of Women's Studies, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The writ petitioner is directed to file her objections to the Enquiry Report dated 28.11.2012, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the Registrar of the University. (iii) Within two weeks of the receipt of the objections of the petitioner, the first respondent-Registrar is directed to forward a copy of the enquiry report dated 28.11.2012, submitted by the retired District Judge, along with a copy of the objections of the writ petitioner and a copy of this order, to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, who is the Chairman of the Committee for an independent and objective assessment. (iv) The Law Secretary, who is now discharging the functions of the second respondent, shall peruse the enquiry report and the objections of the petitioner and take a decision as to whether any case is made out against the petitioner for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Law Secretary shall take the decision, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the first respondent. The Law Secretary shall take the decision, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the first respondent. (v) There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.