JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioner vide order No. Au/Adm/AR(R&C)/94/5639-40 dated 22nd September 1994 was appointed as Probationary Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Agriculture Engineering), Division of Agricultural Engineering, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST) Shalimar, Srinagar. He joined on 12.10.1994, was transferred vide order No. 413 (Est.) of 2006 dated 23.05.2006 to Regional Agriculture Research Station, Leh, and terminated from his services vide Order No. 06 (Est.) of 2009 dated 01.01.2009. The circumstances, in which petitioner was terminated, are likely to surface as we proceed to deal with challenge thrown by petitioner to termination Order No. 06 (Est.) of 2009 dated 01.01.2009 through medium of present petition. Petitioner, on strength of averments made in petition, seeks following relief: "a) Writ of certiorari, quashing order of initiating of enquiry against petitioner, enquiry report, show cause notice and order of termination dated 01.01.2009 issued by respondents 1 to 4 as also order of cancellation of Ph.D. admission of petitioner by respondent No. 5 in terms of his Notice No. NIT/DAA/2008/3724-3731 dated 31.03.2008; b) Mandamus, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to forward application of petitioner or in alternative send sponsorship letter to respond No. 5, so that petitioner's admission to Ph.D. Course at NIT Srinagar is regularised by said respondent and he is given an opportunity of completing the remaining part of said Ph.D. Course; c) Mandamus, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to pay salary to petitioner from April 2006 with all consequential benefits as if no order was ever issued against him; d) Mandamus, commanding respondent No. 5 to admit petitioner to 4th Semester of Ph.D. Course and to allow him to complete the said course with or without sponsorship letter of respondents 1 to 3 and to issue necessary certificates in his favour accordingly." 2. Respondents oppose writ petition on the grounds set out in Reply filed on 18.6.2010 (respondents 1 to 3) and on 24.03.2010 (respondent No. 5) respectively. Respondent No. 4, who played a role as Enquiry Officer, has not taken any stand. 3. I have gone through pleadings as also record made available by learned counsel for respondent university. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 4. Petitioner, as already stated, was appointed vide order No. Au/Adm/AR(R&C)/94/5639-40 dated 22nd September 1994 as Probationary Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Agriculture Engineering), Division of Agricultural Engineering, SKUAST. 3. I have gone through pleadings as also record made available by learned counsel for respondent university. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 4. Petitioner, as already stated, was appointed vide order No. Au/Adm/AR(R&C)/94/5639-40 dated 22nd September 1994 as Probationary Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Agriculture Engineering), Division of Agricultural Engineering, SKUAST. One of the conditions incorporated in the appointment order reads as under: "You will be required to obtain Ph.D. Degree within six years of your joining, failing which your future increments in the pay scale of 3700-5700 shall be stopped." 5. Petitioner successfully completed his probation period. On 22nd May 2006, he submitted an application to Registrar, SKUAST, Srinagar, bearing No. AU/AE/06-07/173 dated 22.05.2006, for his enrolment in Ph.D. Programme. He requested for transmission of application to Registrar National Institute of Technology (NIT), Hazratbal, Srinagar. In the application, he identified "Irrigation Scheduling under Adequate and Limited Water Supply Applying Simulation Techniques/Micro Watershed Development in relation to Non-Point Source through Simulation Techniques" as topic of his research. It was pointed out that application for enrolment in Ph.D. Programme was to reach Registrar, NIT, Hazratbal, by 10th June 2006, so as to enable him to sit in entrance examination for the aforesaid Course. Respondent University, instead of processing his application for enrolment in Ph.D. Programme vide order No. 413 (Est) of 2006 dated 23.05.2006, transferred petitioner from Division of Agriculture Engineering, SKUAST, Shalimar to Regional Agriculture Research Station (RARS) Leh. Petitioner was relieved on 23rd May 2006 itself. He joined at RARS Leh on 1st June 2006, though respondents insist that he actually reported at RARS, Leh, on 13th June 2006. He on 17th June 2006 submitted an application for grant of earned leave with effect from 19th June 2006 to 5th August 2006, to attend his ailing parents and complete leftover construction of his residential house. He, without waiting or leave to be sanctioned in his favour, left RARS, Leh, for Srinagar. He submitted a medical certificate on 19th June 2006, in support of his claim that he was not keeping good health. The Certificate was intended to be used, to justify petitioner's departure from RARS, Leh, for Srinagar. On reaching Srinagar, petitioner seemingly pursued his application for admission to Ph.D programme. His departure from Leh in absence of sanction to earned leave in his favour is at the root of controversy between parties. 6. The Certificate was intended to be used, to justify petitioner's departure from RARS, Leh, for Srinagar. On reaching Srinagar, petitioner seemingly pursued his application for admission to Ph.D programme. His departure from Leh in absence of sanction to earned leave in his favour is at the root of controversy between parties. 6. Head, Civil Engineering Department, NIT, Hazratbal, vide his No. Civil/2006/1308 dated 3rd August 2006 informed Register, SKUAST, Shalimar, Srinagar, that Departmental Research Committee (DRC) had recommended his admission as PH.D. Scholar w.e.f. August 2006. Register, SKUAST, was asked to take necessary action in the matter under intimation to Civil Engineering Department, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar. The communication was followed by Notice No. NIT/Acad/2006/687-92 dated 26th August 2006, a copy whereof was despatched to Register, SKUAST, notifying petitioner's provision admission to Pd.D. Programme in Civil Engineering (water Resources Engineering) with effect from August 2006, subject to fulfillment of required formalities Petitioner was asked by Assistant Registrar (Acad) NIT Hazratbal, to complete registration formalities for aforesaid Ph.D. Programme latest by 9th September 2006. Petitioner was warned that in the event he failed to fulfill such requirements by stipulated date, he would forfeit right of admission to the Course. 7. Petitioner, vide his letter dated 25th September 2006, addressed to Registrar, SKUAST, Shalimar, Srinagar, requested that no objection to his admission be conveyed to NIT, so that petitioner was able to meet deadline of 9th September 2006 that had been reluctantly extended by NIT. It was further stated that in presence of no response to the request from Registrar Academics, NIT, the University was presumed to have no objection to his undergoing Ph.D. Programme. In the meantime, petitioner joined Ph.D. Programme and commenced his research work. Petitioner prayed that he be treated to have been relieved from Leh to join Ph.D. Programme at NIT Srinagar. 8. While petitioner was expecting respondents to convey their no objection to his joining Ph.D. Programme in Water Resources Engineering Management, NIT, Srinagar, respondents had different plans. Respondents decided not to condone petitioner's leaving RARS, Leh, without leave sanctioned in his favour. Respondent No. 2 Registrar, SKUAST, vide University No. 164 (Est.) of 2007 dated 20.03.2007, appointed Dr. Syed Sajad Hussain, Project Planning and Monitoring Officer, SKUAST-K, Shalimar, as Enquiry officer to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence from duty. Enquiry Officer was to submit his report within 30 days i.e. by 20th April 2007. Respondent No. 2 Registrar, SKUAST, vide University No. 164 (Est.) of 2007 dated 20.03.2007, appointed Dr. Syed Sajad Hussain, Project Planning and Monitoring Officer, SKUAST-K, Shalimar, as Enquiry officer to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence from duty. Enquiry Officer was to submit his report within 30 days i.e. by 20th April 2007. Copy of order was despatched to petitioner at his residential address (Lane-3, Bulbul Bagh, Barzulla, Srinagar). 9. Petitioner vide communication No. PF/2006-07/11 dated 29.03.2007, addressed to Enquiry Officer, conveyed his readiness to appear before him and informed Enquiry Officer that he was undergoing Ph.D. Programme in Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Hazratbal, Srinagar, and was currently registered for second Semester of the Programme. He insisted that his joining Ph.D. Programme was in consonance with terms and conditions of his appointment order. He assured Enquiry officer that he would remain available during enquiry as directed and also requested that all communications be addressed to him at the following address: "Er. Tahir Wahid Ph.D. Scholar Cell No. 9419016659, LL 0194-2440202 C/o Water Resources Management Division Deptt. of Civil Engineering. National Institute of Technology (Deemed University) Hazratbal, Srinagar" 10. Professor Hussain did not proceed with enquiry, constraining respondent No. 2 to appoint Dr. Mohammad Ali Khan, Professor and Head, Division of Environmental Sciences, Shalimar, as Enquiry Officer vide Order No. 265 (Est.) of 2007 dated 22.05.2007. Copy of order was also despatched to petitioner at his residential address i.e. Lane-3, Bulbul Bagh, Barzulla, Srinagar. Dr. Khan did not act as required. Respondent University, accordingly, vide Order No. 357 (Est.) of 2007 dated 12.06.2007, appointed Dr. M.A. Kirmani, Dean, FVSc. & A.H. Shuhama, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence from duty. 11. Enquiry Officer (Dr. Kirmani) vide communication dated 18th June 2007, addressed to petitioner at the address given by him for future communications i.e. Water Resource Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar, informed petitioner of his appointment as Enquiry Officer and asked him to appear before him on 10th July 2007 at 11.00 a.m. Petitioner attended office of Enquiry Officer on 10th July 2007 at 11.00 a.m. However, Enquiry Officer was not available and petitioner through written request asked for a nearer date, assuring his full cooperation in the matter. Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 24th July 2007 and 12th November 2007, addressed two questionnaires to petitioner. Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 24th July 2007 and 12th November 2007, addressed two questionnaires to petitioner. Petitioner replied all questions in the space left in questionnaires. Petitioner maintained that he was constrained to leave Leh and proceed to Srinagar because of his deteriorating health conditions and that after he reached Srinagar, he was admitted to Ph.D. Programme at Water Resources Engineering Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, and was pursuing the Course. 12. Meanwhile, respondent University failed to take a decision on petitioner's sponsorship for Ph.D. Programme' National Institute of Technology, after allowing, petitioner to pursue Ph.D. Programme, for one and a half year on the expectation that respondent university may convey sponsorship, vide Notice dated 31st March 2008, cancelled petitioner's admission to Ph.D. Programme. Petitioner was, however, given an opportunity to submit necessary clarification within one week. Petitioner, availing the opportunity, on 4th April 2008 made a request to Vice Chancellor, SKUSAT, to convey his sponsorship to NIT. Getting no response from respondent university, petitioner on 6th April 2008 as last effort approached Advisor to Chief Minister through written application insisting that as he had submitted application for admission to Ph.D. Programme at Water Resources Engineering Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, through proper channel and had been duly admitted to Ph.D. Programme, University authorities be asked to convey their no objection to his admission to Ph.D. Programme. The application was forwarded by Special Secretary to Chief Minister vide communication dated 7th April 2007 to Vice Chancellor, SKUAST. 13. Dr. Kirmani, appointed Enquiry Officer, in the meantime, concluded enquiry and submitted his report to respondent No. 2. He held petitioner to have left RARS Leh on 17th June 2006, after submitting an application for grant of one day's casual leave and to have, therefore, remained un-authorisedly absent. Enquiry report prompted respondent university to issue show cause notice to petitioner on 8th April 2008, informing him that findings returned by Enquiry Officer were accepted by the Competent Authority and requiring him to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated from the date of his unauthorised absence i.e. 17.06.2006. 14. Petitioner on 22nd April 2008 submitted his Reply to show-cause notice dated 8th April 2008. 14. Petitioner on 22nd April 2008 submitted his Reply to show-cause notice dated 8th April 2008. He, in his reply, narrated all facts and events and also pointed out that copy of charge sheet dated 25th July 2006 was not served upon him and therefore he was deprived of an opportunity to explain his conduct in detail. Reply submitted did not sound convincing to respondents. Petitioner was terminated from services vide Order No. 06 (Est.) of 2009 dated 1st January 2009. 15. Petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 1st January 2009, whereby his service has been terminated primarily on the ground that Enquiry Officer while enquiring into his alleged unauthorised absence, did not adhere to the Rules. Petitioner in particular is sore about failure on part of Enquiry Officer to serve a formal charge sheet on petitioner. It is pointed out that in absence of charge sheet, petitioner was deprived of right to have a clear idea about allegations levelled against him and evidence proposed to be pressed into service to substantiate such allegations as also an opportunity to put forth his stand and if necessary adduce evidence in his defence. It is insisted that order dated 1st January 2009 has been made on an assumption that a formal charge sheet was served on petitioner and he given full and fair opportunity to put forward his case and to substantiate defence taken. 16. It is next pleaded that though petitioner from day one appeared before Enquiry Officer and even volunteered to cooperate with enquiry, he was at not at any point of time, except first appearance, asked to appear before Enquiry Officer or acquainted with disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner insists that after two questionnaires were served on him and he duly replied questions set out therein, it was necessary for disciplinary authority, if not satisfied with petitioner's reply, to serve charge-sheet on petitioner stating therein misconduct alleged as also oral and documentary evidence, proposed to be adduced to substantiate such allegations. This according to petitioner has not been done and instead Enquiry Officer without relying on questionnaires replied by petitioner, held petitioner to have unauthorisedly absented from duty with effect from 17th June 2006. It is next pleaded that failure of disciplinary authority to make available documents mentioned and relied upon in enquiry report, to petitioner also cast doubt on legality of termination order. It is next pleaded that failure of disciplinary authority to make available documents mentioned and relied upon in enquiry report, to petitioner also cast doubt on legality of termination order. It is pointed out that competent authority was under obligation to make available documents including enquiry report to petitioner, so as to enable him to make a meaningful and effective use of opportunity provided under Rules to show cause against proposed punishment. It is pointed out that as petitioner in reply to show cause notice, brought it to the notice of disciplinary authority that the documents mentioned in enquiry report were not provided to him, it was obligatory on part of disciplinary authority to provide documents even after receipt of reply from petitioner, so that petitioner in his further reply could deal with and respond to such documents. 17. Petitioner is also aggrieved that he was not given opportunity of being heard, after he submitted his reply to show cause notice. It is insisted that disciplinary authority before imposing extreme penalty of termination from service, is required to provide the employee an opportunity to make a statement. Petitioner complains that he has been treated by respondents in an unfair manner inasmuch as respondents did not only terminate his services in violation of rules but by withholding sponsorship made NIT to cancel his admission to Ph.D. Programme after he had cleared three semesters and was almost at the final stage of Ph.D. Programme. 18. To find out whether petitioner's case, as set out in petition and summarised herein above, has any merit warranting interference, it is necessary to have an overview of Rules, governing the matter and test the action taken on the anvil of such Rules. Jammu and Kashmir Shere-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology is creation of Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982. In terms of Sections 39 and 40 of the Act, Statutes of University may, inter alia, provide for conditions of service, regulations, allowance to be paid, of officers/teachers and other persons employed in University. The focus of attention therefore is to shift to J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956. Clause 26, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology Statutes, 1983, make J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, (for short "J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules") applicable to the employees of university. 19. The focus of attention therefore is to shift to J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956. Clause 26, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology Statutes, 1983, make J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, (for short "J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules") applicable to the employees of university. 19. J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, reflect Constitutional safeguards available to a member of civil service or person who holds any civil post under the State. Rule 33, J&K Civil Service (CCA) Rules prohibits dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a person, who is a member of civil service or holds a civil post in the State unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds it is proposed to take action against him and has been afforded an opportunity of defending himself. It would be advantageous to extract relevant part of Rule 33, J&K CCA Rules: "33(1) Without prejudice to provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1977, no order (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a court-martial) of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank [which includes reduction to a lower post and/or lower timescale, and/or to a lower stage in time-scale] but excludes the reversion to a lower post of a person who is holding a higher post temporarily shall be passed on a person who is a member of a Civil service, or holds a Civil post under the State unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded and adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard, as the inquiring officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish; provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. (2) The rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him, or where in the interest of the security of the State, it is considered not expedient to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of the rule and those requirements can in the opinion of the inquiring officer be waived without injustice to the person charged. (3) this shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation, or to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank a temporary government servant, for any specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service. (4) the competent authority may inquire into the charges itself or if it considers it necessary so to do, it may appoint an inquiry officer for the purpose.] 20. (4) the competent authority may inquire into the charges itself or if it considers it necessary so to do, it may appoint an inquiry officer for the purpose.] 20. It follows that before proposed action i.e. dismissal, removal or reduction in rank against a member of civil service or a person holds a civil post under the State, following safeguards are to be extended to such person; i) He is to be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action; ii) He is to be afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself; iii) Grounds, on which it is proposed to take action, are to be reduced in a form of definite charge or charges and communicated to such person together with statement of allegations on which each charge is based; iv) He is to be informed that he may be heard in person if he so desires; v) In case he desires to be heard an oral enquiry is to be held in respect of allegations as are not admitted; vi) He is to be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses; vii) He is further to be given an opportunity to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish unless enquiry officer for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuses to call a witness; viii) Enquiry officer is to maintain sufficient record of the evidence and statement of findings and the grounds thereof so that at any stage such findings are challenged and the grounds detailed are available for scrutiny. 21. It is only after the procedure laid down in Rule 34 is followed by Enquiry Officer that Enquiry Officer is to record his finding. In the event the charge/charges are held to be proved against delinquent official and Enquiry Officer submits enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, Rule 34, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, is to come in play. It would be appropriate to reproduce the Rule 34, for ready reference: "34. In the event the charge/charges are held to be proved against delinquent official and Enquiry Officer submits enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, Rule 34, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, is to come in play. It would be appropriate to reproduce the Rule 34, for ready reference: "34. After the inquiry against a government servant has been completed, and after the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the government servant charged shall, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under rule 33 excluding the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment, made by the officer conducting the inquiry and asked the show cause by a particular date with affords him reasonable time, why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him. 22. In terms of Rule 34, the Disciplinary Authority or authority competent to impose penalty after receipt of enquiry report, is: i. to go through report and arrive at provisional conclusion as regards penalty to be imposed; ii. to provide opportunity to government servant charged with copy of proceedings prepared under Rule 33, excluding recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment made by Enquiry Officer; iii. to ask show cause within reasonable timeframe against proposed penalty; 23. It is only after the safeguards available under Rule 33 and 34, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, are observed in letter and spirit that an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can be made. 24. When we examine present case on the anvil of Constitutional and Statutory safeguards discussed above, the only conclusion, we arrive at, is that such safeguards have been largely observed in breach. The record available on file would reveal that petitioner all along cooperated with Enquiry Officer and quickly responded to the communications received from Enquiry Officers, whether he was asked to appear or required to provide any information touching the subject of enquiry. Copy of order dated 20th March 2007, whereby Dr. Syed Sajad Hussain, Project Planning and Monitoring Officer, SKUAST-K, Shalimar, was appointed, was also endorsed to petitioner. Copy of order dated 20th March 2007, whereby Dr. Syed Sajad Hussain, Project Planning and Monitoring Officer, SKUAST-K, Shalimar, was appointed, was also endorsed to petitioner. The petitioner without waiting for a formal notice from Enquiry Officer, vide his communication dated 29th March 2007 (Annexure L to petition), informed Enquiry Officer that he would be available whenever asked to appear, gave his residential address and phone numbers, at which he could be reached and also requested for speedy disposal of the matter. Enquiry Officer did not proceed in the matter. Enquiry Officer for reasons unknown and not discernible from record, did not proceed in the matter. Dr. Mohammad Ali Khan, Professor and Head, Division of Environmental Sciences, SKUAST-K, Shalimar, replaced Dr. Syed Sajad Hussain, was vide order No. 265 (Est.) of 2007 dated 22.05.2007, asked to enquire into the matter. He seemingly did not show any interest in conducting any enquiry. Dr. M.A. Kirmani, Dean, FVSc. & A.H. Shuhama, appointed Enquiry Officer in terms of order dated 12.06.2007, vide communication dated 18th June 2007, asked petitioner to appear before him in his office on 10th July 2007. Petitioner attended the office, though Enquiry Officer because of ill health was not available in the office. Enquiry Officer issued two questionnaires vide No. AU/FVS/PA/2301 dated 24.07.2007 and No. Au/FVS/PA/6922 dated 12.11.2007, which were duly replied by petitioner. Record would reveal that nothing more was done by Enquiry officer and enquiry report submitted on 02.02.2008 to the Competent Authority. The enquiry report, however, refers to charge sheet sent on petitioner vide Assistant Registrar (Est.) SKUAST-K, Shalimar's No. Adm/ASP/(AE)/W/6734-36 dated 25.07.2006 at his address C/o Aziz & Co. (Regd), Cement & Hardware Dealers, Shreen Bagh, Auqaf Complex, Karan Nagar, Srinagar -190010. 25. The methodology followed by Enquiry Officer while enquiring into matter, does not satisfy requirements of Rule 33, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules. In first place, charge sheet was sent to the address other than address on which all communications were served on petitioner, after enquiry was initiated into his alleged unauthorised absence. Perusal of record would reveal that all notices and communications were served on petitioner at his residential address i.e. Lane-3, Bulbul Bagh, Barzulla, Srinagar or at Water Resource Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar. It, therefore, sounds convincing that the charge Sheet was not actually served on or received by petitioner. Perusal of record would reveal that all notices and communications were served on petitioner at his residential address i.e. Lane-3, Bulbul Bagh, Barzulla, Srinagar or at Water Resource Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar. It, therefore, sounds convincing that the charge Sheet was not actually served on or received by petitioner. It is pertinent to point out that plea that charge sheet was not served on petitioner, is not something pleaded first time in writ petition on hand. Petitioner in his reply dated 22nd April 2008 to show-cause notice dated 8th April 2008, raised a specific plea that charge sheet or statement of allegations was not served on him and he denied opportunity to respond to charge sheet or to put forth his stand. Perusal of record made available by Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent university, would reveal that a second charge sheet dated 7th September 2009 was sent to petitioner on his residential address - Lane-3, Bulbul Bagh, Barzulla, Srinagar. This charge sheet, however, does not find mention in enquiry report dated 02.02.2008. Reference in the enquiry report is only made to charge sheet dated 25th July 2006. The charge sheet dated 25th July 2006 refers to petitioner's alleged misbehaviour with Vice Chancellor and tempering with attendance register. However, charge sheet does not include "statement of articles of charge", "statement of imputations of misconduct", and "evidence to be adduced to support articles of charge". We may recall that requirement to serve charge sheet on a delinquent employee before his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is not an idle formality. Delinquent is to be conveyed with sufficient clarity the grounds, on which it is proposed to take action against him and such grounds are to be reduced in the form of definite charge. In present case, even if charge sheet is presumed to have been served on petitioner, it having regard to its contents and form, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 33, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules. 26. One more aspect of the case needs to be noticed. In present case, even if charge sheet is presumed to have been served on petitioner, it having regard to its contents and form, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 33, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules. 26. One more aspect of the case needs to be noticed. After petitioner left RARS Leh, according to respondents, without getting leave sanctioned in his favour and joined Water Resources Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar, as Ph.D. student, respondents for first time vide order No. 164 (Est.) of 2007 dated 20th March 2007, appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence from RARS, Leh. The charge sheet, according to initial report, was issued on 25.07.2006 i.e. about 09 months Enquiry Officer for first time was appointed to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence from duty i.e. RARS, Leh. Order dated 20th March 2007, 22nd May 2007 and 12th June 2007, whereby three Enquiry Officers, one after another, were appointed, do not refer to charge and instead direct Enquiry Officers to enquire into petitioner's unauthorised absence. It appears that what was intended by university authority was to direct a fact finding or preliminary enquiry into petitioner's unauthorised absence and take further action only after enquiry report was available. This is the reason that Dr. Kirmani issued questionnaire to petitioner, asking him to submit his reply to questions relating to his departure from RARS, Leh, and subsequent events. If that be so, charge sheet as visualised by Rule 33, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, was to be framed on the basis of enquiry report and could not have come into existence before the matter was enquired into. The official record does not lend support to case set up by respondents in opposition to writ petition. 27. From above discussion, it emerges that respondents while terminating petitioner's services, vide order impugned in petition, have not adhered to mandate of Clause 26, SKUAST Statutes, 1983, read with Rule 33 & Rule 34, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules. Enquiry proceedings and order dated 1st January 2009, impugned in petition, cannot, therefore, stand legal scrutiny and are liable to be quashed. 28. This takes us to petitioner's grievance as regards cancellation of admission to Ph.D. Programme at Water Resources Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar. Enquiry proceedings and order dated 1st January 2009, impugned in petition, cannot, therefore, stand legal scrutiny and are liable to be quashed. 28. This takes us to petitioner's grievance as regards cancellation of admission to Ph.D. Programme at Water Resources Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Hazratbal, Srinagar. It is admitted case of petitioner that to get his provisional admission to Ph.D. Programme, converted into regular admission, he was to be sponsored for Ph.D. Programme by the Department, where he worked. Though respondent NIT extended concession to petitioner, by provisionally registering him for the programme and even allowing him to be promoted from one to another semester, yet his admission all along remained provisional and was to be confirmed on receipt of sponsorship from respondent university. The respondent university on one or other pretext failed to sponsor petitioner for Ph.D. Programme. NIT cannot be forced to regularise admission granted under bona fide belief that enrolled person would be sponsored by his department/organisation, in the event such sponsorship is not communicated to the Institute. So viewed, it would not be permissible to grant a writ of Mandamus, commanding NIT to regularise petitioner's admission to Ph.D. Programme or to readmit petitioner. Respondent university can be asked to consider transmission of sponsorship to NIT and the Institute on receipt of such sponsorship to take further decision in the matter. This, however, would be only after petitioner is reinstated and thereafter exonerated on enquiry conducted in accordance with rules or in the event alleged misconduct (unauthorised absence from duty) is proved, his unauthorised absence dealt with under rules. 29. For reasons discussed, writ petition is allowed and order No. 06 (Est.) of 2009 dated 1st January 2009, whereby petitioner has been terminated, is quashed with liberty to respondent university to direct a fresh enquiry into the matter in accordance with Clause 26, SKUAST Statutes, 1983, read with Rule 33, J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules. The petitioner be allowed to join and resume his duty. The period with effect from 17th June 2006 till the date of termination order dated 1st January 2009, shall be dealt with having regard to outcome of enquiry, if any, directed and in accordance with rules. The petitioner be allowed to join and resume his duty. The period with effect from 17th June 2006 till the date of termination order dated 1st January 2009, shall be dealt with having regard to outcome of enquiry, if any, directed and in accordance with rules. In the event petitioner, on conclusion of enquiry, continues to be on faculty of respondent university, the university shall accord consideration to petitioner's sponsorship for Ph.D. Programme with retrospective effect so that respondent NIT reinducts or readmits petitioner to fourth Semester, Ph.D. Programme, to which he was promoted before cancellation of his admission, so that the course completed/research done, does not go waste. 30. Before parting judgment, I am constrained to observe that case in hand presents the worst case of apathy on part of Registrar and other authorities of SKUAST, It depicts how a faculty member/Scientist working with university is hounded by university authorities and made to run from pillar to post and in the process, to lose his job as well as admission to Ph.D. Programme, What lied at the bottom of controversy, was petitioner's departure from RARS, Leh, without proper permission and without getting leave sanctioned in his favour. Respondents, after petitioner was able to get admission in Ph.D. Programme in Water Resources Management, ought to have dealt with his period of absence that at relevant time was only of a few weeks and sponsor petitioner for Ph.D. Programme, University authority, on other hand, though informed by NIT of petitioner's admission, avoided to take a decision in the matter, encouraging petitioner to continue with the programme till his admission was cancelled though promoted to 4th semester and his services were also terminated that too without following procedure laid down in the Rules. The mode and manner in which the matter has been dealt with by Registrar, SKUAST, and the university authorities deserves to be deprecated, to say the least. It is high time that university authorities at highest level appreciate that such an attitude by no means is in tune with good governance and State litigation Policy expected to be followed by the university.