JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri T.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for opposite parties. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.04.2009 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated by the Integral University, Lucknow. 3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Watchman on 19.09.1998 on a consolidated pay of Rs.1200/- per month in the Institute of Integral Technology, Lucknow (Islamic Council for Productive Education) which was affiliated with the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow. Later in the year 2004, the Institution was made a full fledged University by U.P.Act No.9 of 2004 i.e. The Integral University Act, 2004 and was given recognition by the University Grant Commission. Subsequently, the petitioner was provided regular scale of pay as admissible to class IV employees of the Integral University. It is the say of the petitioner that he was performing his duties with full sincerity and devotion and there was no complaint with regard to his work and conduct in any manner but abruptly on 09.04.2009, the services of the petitioner have been terminated orally by the Registrar, Integral University without assigning any reason and without providing and opportunity of hearing. At the time of termination, the petitioner was getting Rs.6379/- as salary and his Provident Fund was also being deducted. 4. Being aggrieved by the oral termination, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 22.06.2009, posted the writ petition for 26.06.2009 and directed the learned Counsel for the opposite parties to seek instructions in the matter. On 26.06.2009, learned Counsel for the opposite parties served a copy of the impugned order dated 16.04.2009, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the service of the petitioner is no longer required by the University whereas a number of persons appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as Watchmen are being allowed to continue in service. 5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after recognition, the petitioner was getting regular salary and the same was revised from time to time. 5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after recognition, the petitioner was getting regular salary and the same was revised from time to time. It is said that the petitioner was whole time employee of the University and as such before imposing major penalty on an employee of the University, an inquiry shall be held against him but in the case of the petitioner, no such inquiry has been conducted. 6. It has also contended that as per Section 2(h) of the Integral University Act, 2004 [in short referred to as the Act], an "employee" means any person appointed by the University and includes teachers and other staff of University. Section 2 (s) defines "University" and it means "The Integral University" established under this Act and Section 38 (7) provides that other Officer/Staff like teacher, teaching/supporting, Administrative Provost/Proctor/Hostel Wardens, Skilled and Unskilled workers etc. of the Institute of Integral Technology shall either be retained or absorbed in the University on the same term and condition. As the petitioner was appointed prior to enforcement of the Act i.e. on 19.09.1998 on permanent basis in accordance with law, therefore, he was retained/absorbed in the University. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that as per the provisions of Statute 6.05 of the First Statutes, 2006, the Registrar is not empowered to terminate the service of the petitioner and as per Statute 23.18 (4), no employee shall be removed from his office unless a resolution to that extent is passed by the Executive Council. Therefore, the impugned order of termination is per se bad in law. 8. It has also been argued that the inquiry which has been conducted against the petitioner is an ex-parte inquiry in which stigmatic remarks have been made and the same constitute foundation and not motive rendering termination order punitive, hence termination order passed without holding regular enquiry is unsustainable, To substantiate his argument reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in Ratnesh Kumar Chaudhari v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar and others; (2015) 15 SCC 15, Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and another; (1984) 2 SCC 369 Union of India and others v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi; (2010) 8 SCC 220 , Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P. Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another; (1999) 2 SCC 21 9. It has also been argued that termination of service on the ground of misconduct which was duly inquired by the Inquiry Officer, but not in accordance with law, since the very foundation of order of termination is the finding of the fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer, it seems to be punitive in nature hence not liable to be survive being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See: Sri Kanhaiya Lal v. Uttar Pradesh Lok Seva Adhikaran and others; 2008 (26) LCD 1470) 10. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, it has been vehemently argued by the Counsel for the Integral University that the petitioner was engaged in the exigency of work without any selection process and was assigned the duties of Watchman, for which an identity card was also issued. As regard the deduction of EPF from the wages/remuneration of any employee whether regular or casual or temporary is mandatory under the Rules. 11. As regard the working of the petitioner it has been submitted that despite warning, the petitioner was not improving himself towards his work and conduct. The payment of his wages was therefore, stopped pending further action. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered an apology by letter dated 10.02.2009 and requested for release of his salary. Hence taking a lenient view, the wages of the petitioner was released on his assurance that he would not repeat such lapses in future. However, in the meantime, written complaints were received in the University against the work and conduct of the petitioner. Questions were raised even against his character in general and his behaviour towards female sweepers working in the University. 12. On these complaints, the Vice Chancellor ordered for inquiring into the matter. Accordingly, Mr. S.A. Khan, Officer on Special Duty was asked to make an informal inquiry into the matter so as to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The Inquiry Officer had issued a notice dated 28.03.2009, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-8 to the Counter Affidavit, whereby the petitioner was required to present before him in order to clarify the position on the points of allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner, however, read the memo, but refused to take the same. Hence, the notice was returned by the Dispatch Clerk, Mr. Laeeq (who had sought to serve the notice on the petitioner) with the remark of refusal. The petitioner, however, read the memo, but refused to take the same. Hence, the notice was returned by the Dispatch Clerk, Mr. Laeeq (who had sought to serve the notice on the petitioner) with the remark of refusal. The petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the date fixed i.e. on 30.03.2009 and the Dispatch Clerk again sought to serve the same upon the petitioner on that date itself. However, the petitioner again read the notice but refused to take the same and the notice, therefore, was returned by the Dispatch Clerk to the Inquiry Officer with the remark of refusal. 13. Thus it is clear that the petitioner deliberately avoided to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Looking to the attitude of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer have no other option except to proceed with the inquiry and personally interacted with the complainants, who appeared before him and reiterated their allegations made in complaint. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report with regard to allegations made against the petitioner about his work and performance as also his attitude towards female workers, which was far from satisfactory. 14. After considering the said report on administrative level, the engagement of the petitioner was dispensed with on 16.04.2009. As he was only an unapproved worker, engaged without any post or selection process and also without any appointment letter, it was not considered necessary to hold a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry after issuing charge-sheet before terminating his services. It has been added that truth of the allegations against the work and conduct of the petitioner had been ascertained through a fact finding inquiry. Hence, an order dated 16.04.2009 terminating the services of the petitioner was issued. 15. From the material on record, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was engaged as a Watchman but the petitioner has failed to show that he was given regular appointment letter after due process of selection. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to show that he was a regularly appointed employee of the University. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has stated that no oral order terminating the services of the petitioner was issued. The fact is that a written order dated 16.4.2009 was issued. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to show that he was a regularly appointed employee of the University. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has stated that no oral order terminating the services of the petitioner was issued. The fact is that a written order dated 16.4.2009 was issued. However, the petitioner voluntarily had stopped coming to the University from 10th April 2009 apparently when he found that the various employees and students have spoken against him during the fact finding inquiry. It is relevant to mention that from the documents it comes out that the petitioner himself had come to the University on 15.06.2009 and asked for full and final settlement of his dues (which means that despite return of the registered letter containing his termination order, the petitioner knew about his termination from service), he was paid an amount of Rs.14672/- which included the full amount of his one month salary i.e. Rs.6379/-, salary of March, 2009 and salary of nine days. He also gave his declaration on no dues certificate form that he had accepted the termination order in full and final settlement and there remained no dispute between him and the University. It has also been pointed out that without any protest the petitioner encashed the cheque on the same date i.e. 15.06.2009. 16. I find force in the submission of the University that as the petitioner was engaged in exigencies of work, his services were dispensed with through an innocuous order without going through the whole hog procedure of disciplinary proceedings. It may be noted that even on earlier occasions when the petitioner failed to perform his duties properly he was warned to improve and was allowed to continue in the service. If he was to be removed from service on the allegations of misconduct, at that time itself the respondent University could have removed him from service. However, the fact remains that the petitioner failed to improve and even complaints of serious nature were made by female workers. The case laws which have been relied upon by the person/incumbent was either appointed on probation or was appointed after due process of selection against a substantive vacancy on regular basis. Here, the facts are entirely different as the petitioner has failed to show by any document that he was ever appointed on regular basis. The case laws which have been relied upon by the person/incumbent was either appointed on probation or was appointed after due process of selection against a substantive vacancy on regular basis. Here, the facts are entirely different as the petitioner has failed to show by any document that he was ever appointed on regular basis. In the facts of the present case, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to him. 17. Thus, looking from every angle, I decline to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which are available on record. 18. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.