Judgment The present writ petition is filed assailing the proceedings, dated 19.10.2006, issued by the respondent University terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized absence, which, in terms of the university regulations, is a major misconduct. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner initially secured employment in the respondent University as an attender on 26.07.1991 and continued to work thereafter till recently when his services were terminated. On 05.11.2005, the University Engineer, in whose division the petitioner had been working, informed the Registrar of the respondent University that the petitioner had absconded from duty and had not been attending the office since 26.10.2005. Based on the said communication, the respondent University issued a show cause notice, dated 20.12.2005, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Though the communication was sent through registered post, it was returned undelivered with an endorsement that the petitioner had been unavailable for the past 30 days. Later, on 01.02.2006, the respondent University issued further proceedings placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order of suspension too was sent to the petitioner on 03.02.2006 through registered post, as well as under the certificate of posting. In terms of the university regulations, the respondent University appointed two professors of the University as enquiry officers, through proceedings, dated 19.04.2006. The said enquiry officers issued to the petitioner a charge sheet on 12.05.2006 through registered post. This communication alone was received and acknowledged by the petitioner. When the petitioner had not appeared before the enquiry officers, much less submitted any explanation in response to the said charge sheet, the enquiry officers set the petitioner ex parte and proceeded with the enquiry, which eventually culminated in their submission of the enquiry report, dated 21.06.2006, to the Registrar of the respondent University. Having accepted the said report, treating the absence of the petitioner as wilful and unauthorized, the disciplinary authority terminated the petitioner’s services, through the impugned order, dated 19.10.2006. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that at no point of time, was there any notice served on the petitioner except a notice, dated 12.05.2006. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that at no point of time, was there any notice served on the petitioner except a notice, dated 12.05.2006. Referring to the said communication, which the learned counsel for the petitioner preferred to call ‘a mere notice’, and which the respondent University, on the other hand, preferred to call ‘a charge sheet’, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the so called charge sheet does not have the necessary pre-requisites of a charge sheet to be called so. In other words, according to the learned counsel, no specific charges have been framed in the said communication. The learned counsel has initially laid a lot of stress on the aspect that it is the disciplinary authority, who is required to frame the charges, put the petitioner on notice by calling for his explanation regarding the charges, and that only when the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory, he is then obligated to appoint an enquiry officer. According to the learned counsel, the respondent University has reversed the process by appointing the enquiry officers in the first place and later by asking those enquiry officers to frame charges against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that, besides the reversal of the process, even the enquiry officers have not framed any charges, but have only caused a notice to be served on the petitioner with the narration of events - without there being any specific charge to be answered. There has been no indication as to the material to be used against the petitioner or the witnesses likely to be examined, in the event of an enquiry taking place. Thus, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that the so called charge sheet is vague and that it was issued by the enquiry officers, who have not been authorised in this regard, and as such, it suffers from incurable legal infirmities. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd ( 2005 (3) ALT 632 ). In support of these submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd ( 2005 (3) ALT 632 ). The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that except the notice, dated 12.05.2006, no other communication was sent to the petitioner, but the authorities of the respondent University have conveniently chosen to blame the petitioner alleging that he evaded to receive all other communications. Contending that there was no truth in the allegation, the learned counsel has submitted that in response to the notice, dated 12.05.2006, the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondent University, but he did not find the enquiry officers in the respondent University. When he contacted the staff of the respondent University, they told the petitioner that he would be further informed about the date of enquiry and other aspects and that he could appear on receipt of such notice. Believing the assurance given by the staff of the respondent University, the petitioner had been waiting with a hope to be heard from the authorities of the respondent University to participate in the enquiry and to defend himself. The learned counsel has stated that, belying his hopes, eventually, the respondent University chose to publish in the newspapers the orders of his termination from service. Having come to know about his termination only from the newspapers in the month of October, 2006, the petitioner rushed to the respondent University and pleaded for the information in this regard. The authorities of the respondent University, however, have not parted with any information, and as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, assailing the order of termination passed against him as being totally illegal and arbitrary. As to the manner of enquiry and also on the issue of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Punjab National Bank and others vs. K.K. Verma ( (2010) 13 SCC 494 ), Sate of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha ( (2010) 2 SCC 772 ) and Union of India vs. Gyan Chand Chattar ( 2009 (8) SCJ 542 ). Per contra,the learned standing counsel for the respondent University, in tune with the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent University, has strenuously opposed all the claims and contentions of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been guilty of suppression of the material facts and on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Adverting to the facts of the case, the learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been a habitual absentee. In a decade of his service in the respondent University, the petitioner has been absent for more than three years at different intervals, which is after excluding the usual leaves he has exhausted. In other words, the petitioner has gone on extraordinary leave without pay for more than three years. As a matter of specific instances, the learned standing counsel has stated that in 1994, over and above the usual sanctioned leave, the petitioner availed himself of 12 days extraordinary leave without pay on different occasions. Later, in the first half of 1995, the petitioner absented himself for 132 days without leave. Again, from 10.08.1995 to 06.02.1996, the petitioner absconded from duty for more than six months i.e., for 181 days. The learned standing counsel has contended that on all those occasions, though the petitioner did not have any accrued leave to his credit, the respondent University regularised his unauthorised absence treating it as extraordinary leave without pay. It is further contended that, on one occasion the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Apart from imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, the petitioner has also been severely warned not to repeat in future any such instances of unauthorized absence, which would be viewed seriously on repetition. It has been further contended by the learned standing counsel that despite the said warning, habituated as the petitioner had been, he again abandoned the duty and absented himself from duty from 26.10.2005. Subsequently, in the manner stated supra, the petitioner was put on show cause notice, later a charge sheet was issued and eventually, after conducting the departmental enquiry, in which the petitioner did not choose to participate despite proper communication in this regard, the respondent University was constrained to terminate his services, through the impugned order, dated 19.10.2006. Subsequently, in the manner stated supra, the petitioner was put on show cause notice, later a charge sheet was issued and eventually, after conducting the departmental enquiry, in which the petitioner did not choose to participate despite proper communication in this regard, the respondent University was constrained to terminate his services, through the impugned order, dated 19.10.2006. Answering the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no charge sheet was issued, the learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the respondent University Service Rules under Part-V, which deals with discipline and appeal rules. Specifically referring to Regulation 9(3)(a) thereof, he has submitted that if the University proposes to hold an enquiry against any of its employees, the enquiry officer himself or herself shall draw up the charge sheet. The learned standing counsel has submitted that, the respondent University accordingly chose to appoint two enquiry officers, who in turn drew up the charge sheet and served it on the petitioner. The learned standing counsel has also submitted that though the petitioner has evaded to receive all other communications, insofar as the charge sheet is concerned, he received and acknowledged it. Thus, the learned standing counsel has strenuously contended that there is no force in the assertion of the petitioner that at no point of time was he served with any notice or proceedings and that the entire enquiry was conducted ex parte in a premeditated manner, thus offending the principles of natural justice. The learned standing counsel has stated that though the petitioner had been guilty on numerous occasions due to his habitual absenteeism, the respondent University took a lenient view, and, only as a last resort, when the petitioner proved to be incorrigible, the respondent University proceeded with disciplinary proceedings after following the due process. The learned standing counsel has also stated that there is no substance in the plea of the petitioner that communication, dated 12.05.2006, is not a charge sheet and in the alternative, if it were to be treated as a charge sheet, it had been very vague without having any sustained charges. Elaborating on the said submission, the learned standing counsel has submitted that on the face of record, it is a simple case of unauthorized absence. Elaborating on the said submission, the learned standing counsel has submitted that on the face of record, it is a simple case of unauthorized absence. As such, unless the petitioner has any other cogent material to establish that he had actually worked during the period when he had been charged to have been absent, the question of framing specific and explicit charge or specifying in the charge sheet the material to be relied on or the witnesses to be examined would be of no consequence. Thus, in sum and substance, the learned standing counsel has submitted that the charge has been very clearly laid out in the communication, dated 12.05.2006; that despite proper communication to the petitioner, he did not choose to participate in the enquiry; and that, ipso facto, the petitioner was estopped from re-agitating the issue, which eventually culminated in the termination of the petitioner’s services. Thus, the learned standing counsel has contended that the writ petition lacks merits and is required to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent University, apart from perusing the record. There is, indeed, some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has further been fortified on perusal of the record, especially the communication, dated 12.05.2006, that though it was styled as charge sheet by the respondent University, it had been only in the narrative form without setting out the charges. Nor does it indicate the material sought to be relied on by the respondent University or the witnesses proposed to be examined during the course of enquiry. In fact, a charge sheet is required to be specific, apart from its containing the material required to be brought to the notice of the delinquent to enable him to defend himself effectively. At the same time, the parameters as to the particulars to be provided in the charge sheet will depend upon the nature of the charges. If a delinquent is facing a charge, something like misappropriate or defalcation of funds, say a group of employees, it is incumbent on the part of the management or the employer to provide the particulars in an explicit manner so as to enable the delinquent employees to ascertain the rolls that had been attributed to them and the allegations they were required to meet. In that context, time and again, the Supreme Court, as well as this Court, has laid down the principle that if the charge sheet suffers from vice of vagueness, it shall fail. It may be added here that the graver the charges, the more meticulous the charge sheet should be in providing the information to the delinquent. The purpose behind this proposition is that the delinquent should not be taken by surprise at any cost during the later course of enquiry. Though it cannot be said that the communication, dated 12.05.2006, of the respondent university, termed as charge-sheet, does not suffer from vagueness as such, at the same time, it has not contained any specific charge at all. In response to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officers ought not to have issued the so-called charge sheet by usurping the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, it may be profitable, in this regard, to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Appala Reddy (supra), wherein, after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna ( AIR 2001 SC 343 ), the Division Bench has observed that in usual parlance, the disciplinary authority is initially required to issue a show cause notice, and on receipt of explanation from the delinquent, only when it has not been satisfied with the explanation, it is obligated to frame the charges. It is further held that on framing those charges, as a matter of further procedural requirement, the enquiry officer is to be appointed. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships have held that issuance of charge sheet by the enquiry officer is unknown to service jurisprudence and as such, it was held to have been vitiated. In any event, though the same plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, with all the vigour the said plea deserves, evidently the said proposition of law, especially in service jurisprudence, will not have any universal application. Since most of the statutory parameters are fixed based on either the subordinate legislation in the form of rules or based on administrative instructions having drawn the power for their substance under Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India, apart from the enabling parent statutes. Since most of the statutory parameters are fixed based on either the subordinate legislation in the form of rules or based on administrative instructions having drawn the power for their substance under Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India, apart from the enabling parent statutes. Thus, essentially any procedure to be adopted shall depend upon the rules and regulations that govern the field of the said service. In the present case, as has been pointed out by the leaned standing counsel, the regulations of the respondent University do permit such framing of charges by the enquiry officers. Accordingly, with profound respect to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to hold that the same ratio may not have any application to the present fact situation. Adverting to the decision of this Court in Prof. M. Vivekananda Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( 2008(5) ALD 427 ), there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that whenever the principles of natural justice are sought to be invoked, for each and every trivial violation thereof it cannot be held that the whole process stands vitiated. As such, unless manifest prejudice is shown to have been caused to the delinquent, the entire enquiry cannot be said to be set at naught on such technical infraction. In any event, on all previous occasions when the petitioner absented himself from duty, the respondent University chose to regularise his absence by accommodating all the instances of absence in the form extraordinary leave without pay; only on the last occasion, when the petitioner absented himself, the respondent University chose to proceed further. Adverting to the issue of vagueness in the charges, or the absence of the very charges, and also the prejudice alleged to have been caused thereby to the petitioner, it is to be stated that the question of participating in the enquiry and defending oneself would arise only when charges are specific and delinquent is called upon to answer the same. In the present instance, the authorities of the respondent University ought to have in the first place sought the petitioner’s explanation to the charges levelled against the petitioner, and thereafter, if they had not been convinced with the explanation, they could have proceeded with the enquiry. In the present instance, the authorities of the respondent University ought to have in the first place sought the petitioner’s explanation to the charges levelled against the petitioner, and thereafter, if they had not been convinced with the explanation, they could have proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry officers, however, have chosen to summon the delinquent to appear before them and participate in the enquiry and in that process to submit his explanation, if any. Thus, it shows that proceeding with the enquiry is a premeditated course on the part of the enquiry officers. In that context, the aspect of prejudice has been evident in the very manner of summoning the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officers without giving him an opportunity to explain the charges framed against him. With reference to the other aspects of the enquiry proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the ratio laid down in Saroj Kumar Sinha3. The issue in the said case is with regard to non-supply of material documents to the delinquent. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a departmental enquiry is conducted against a Government servant, it cannot be treated as a casual exercise and the enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. It was further held that the enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased and that the rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done, but is manifestly seen to be done. Applying the said ratio to the present fact scenario, it may have to be initially stated that the charge sheet, dated 12.05.2006, does not indicate the material to be relied upon by the respondent University during the course of enquiry, nor has it specified the witnesses it proposed to examine. The fact, however, remains that despite proper communication of the said charge sheet, the petitioner has not chosen to appear before the enquiry officers, notwithstanding his vague plea that though he approached the respondent University on more than one occasion with a view to meeting the enquiry officers, they were not found in the respondent University. The fact, however, remains that despite proper communication of the said charge sheet, the petitioner has not chosen to appear before the enquiry officers, notwithstanding his vague plea that though he approached the respondent University on more than one occasion with a view to meeting the enquiry officers, they were not found in the respondent University. I am afraid, in the absence of any proof in the form of tangible communication to the said effect on the part of the petitioner to the respondent University seeking particulars about the enquiry or the likely date when the enquiry is to be held, the said plea cannot be countenanced and has to be rejected as a mere ipse dixit. Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been infraction of the principles of natural justice, one should appreciate the jurisprudential journey of the said doctrine. From a mere common law course to a Constitutional force, its journey is remarkable. Having occupied the pride of place in the pantheon of fundamental rights, the said principles, however, from the days of inviolability and immutability, have now come down to be pegged with the principle of prejudice. As such, the principles of natural Justice cannot be stretched too far and their application may be subject to the provisions of a statute or statutory rule. Having said that, in the same breath, it is to be added that right to a fair hearing is not to be denied even if there is no statutory provision for it. Thus, whenever a delinquent has proposed to take shelter under the cover of the principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon him to establish that the violation thereof has resulted in manifest prejudice. In the present instance, when the petitioner chose to be frequently absent, and did not make any arrangements to receive the communications sent to him by the University to his last known address, it is difficult to divine the prejudice that has been caused to him. In the present instance, when the petitioner chose to be frequently absent, and did not make any arrangements to receive the communications sent to him by the University to his last known address, it is difficult to divine the prejudice that has been caused to him. Referring to the ratio laid down in Gyan Chand Chattar4, it may have to be stated that, even in this case, referring to the impact of non-observance of the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court has held with regard to the charge sheet that the charges should be specific, definite and it must be giving details of the incident, which formed the basis of charges. It has further been held that no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. In the manner stated supra, in the present case, it is indeed true that the charge sheet is rather rambling and has not been specific as to the exact scope and the contents of the charges proposed to have been laid against the petitioner. As such, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent University ought to have been more diligent in having the charges framed. Accordingly, to the extent of the vagueness of the charges and also lack of information, such as the material to be relied on and also the witnesses proposed to be examined, notwithstanding the factum that the petitioner did not chose to participate in the enquiry, it ought to be held in favour of the petitioner. In K.K.Verma2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the delinquent employee is not furnished with the copy of the enquiry report and when the disciplinary authority straight away passes the order of removal, such removal cannot be sustained since the delinquent has not been put on proper notice enabling him to answer the final charges. In the present instance, the petitioner disputes serving of any notice on him, especially the enquiry report, dated 21.06.2006. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent University has contended that the respondent University has complied with the service not only by way of certificate of posting, but also by way of registered post with acknowledgement due. In fact, the petitioner, it is contended, has deliberately evaded to receive the same; as such, the respondent University cannot be blamed for that. In fact, the petitioner, it is contended, has deliberately evaded to receive the same; as such, the respondent University cannot be blamed for that. Be that as it may, once the respondent University placed on record that they have made efforts to serve the petitioner through registered post, there is a presumption of deemed service in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, unless the same is rebutted. On that count, the ratio laid down in the above case may not have relevance to the case on hand. Summing up the discussion on the issue, indisputably on all the previous occasions, the respondent University has indeed asked the petitioner to mend his ways despite his repeated unauthorized absence on many occasions -in one instance the unauthorised absence stretching into more than six months. Incidentally, all those instances of absence have been regularised. It does not amount to condonation of lapses on the part of the petitioner. Once again, when the petitioner absented himself from duty since 26.10.2005 without leave, the respondent University, with a view to instilling some semblance of discipline in the rank and file of the organization, and also to take an erring and incorrigible employee to task, has been justified in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The validity of the cause, however, may not justify the procedural shortcomings, if they have the potential of affecting the delinquent in a drastic manner, especially in the form of termination from service. As such, the graver the punishment, the more scrupulous should be the observance of the procedural safeguards. The rule would not brook any violation or deviation. In the present instance, indeed the charge sheet does not have the prerequisites to pass itself as a proper charge sheet. Though the enquiry officers have, with a felicity of expression, narrated all the sequence of events, when it comes to the actual misconduct of the petitioner, they have not spelt out the scope of the charge sheet or the extent of it, nor is there any specific charge framed. They have not even specified the material to be relied on. In that event, it has to be held, especially in the light of the law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements, that the charge sheet suffers from vagueness. They have not even specified the material to be relied on. In that event, it has to be held, especially in the light of the law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements, that the charge sheet suffers from vagueness. Accordingly, as a natural corollary, the impugned order, passed based on the said vague charge sheet, is liable to be set aside, and is hereby set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the show cause notice-cum-charge sheet, dated 12.05.2006, and the impugned proceedings No.663/Estt./Admn.IV/43-PF/2006-07, dated 19.10.2006, are hereby set aside, relegating the matter to the stage when the said charge sheet was issued. Thus, keeping the orders of suspension intact, the respondent University is directed to issue a fresh charge sheet to the petitioner, framing specific charges and supplying the material, if any, to be relied on during the course of enquiry, apart from stating the witnesses proposed to be examined. On issuance of the said charge sheet through registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner, the respondent University may proceed further with the enquiry, in which event, the petitioner is entitled to participate in it, and thereafter conclude the entire process of enquiry within a period of three months. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.