JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was appointed as Professor in the Department of Physics in the Central University of Kerala, i.e., the 1st respondent, on and with effect from 08.02.2016, as per Ext.P10 order, seeking to quash Ext.P17 show cause notice issued to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P18 report submitted by the Executive Council Sub-Committee constituted to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioner. As per Ext.P17, petitioner is directed to submit explanation in the light of the decision of the Executive Council, on the basis of Ext.P18 report of the Executive Sub-Committee within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter, i.e., 17.06.2019, and for other related and consequential relief’s. Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Professor on conducting selection in the Department of Physics, as per Ext.P1 notification. As per Ext.P10 order, after conducting the selection process, petitioner joined as Professor on 08.02.2016 and thereafter continuing in service and discharging his duties. The probation of the petitioner was thereafter declared as per Ext.P11 order. According to the petitioner, on the basis of a false complaint viz., Ext.P14 filed by one Shyam Chandran K.P., petitioner was served with Ext.P17 show cause notice. On the basis of Ext.P14 complaint, the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent constituted a committee with the following incumbents to enquire into the complaint received on the appointment of the petitioner as Professor in the Department of Physics: 1. Dr. M. Arunachalam, Professor & Head, Department of Animal Science, Central University of Kerala - Convenor. 2. Dr. M.R. Pratapachandra Kurup, Professor & Head, Department of Chemistry, Central University of Kerala - Member 3. Dr. K.R. Vijayakumar, Professor, Department of Physics, Mangalore University - Member 4. Dr. P. Pradeep, Professor & Head Department of Physics, NIT, Calicut - Member 3. Out of the above four members, two of the members are Faculties of the 1st respondent University, whereas two of them are from outside Universities. According to the petitioner, the committee has submitted a report, after conducting due enquiry, in favour of the petitioner, however, no copy of the report of the committee is served on the petitioner. Petitioner came to know about the report of the committee only from Ext.P17 show cause notice. According to the petitioner, the committee has submitted a report, after conducting due enquiry, in favour of the petitioner, however, no copy of the report of the committee is served on the petitioner. Petitioner came to know about the report of the committee only from Ext.P17 show cause notice. From Ext.P17 show cause notice, petitioner also understood that the Executive Council held on 24th January, 2019 at Thiruvananthapuram has discussed the issue in relation to the enquiry conducted by aforesaid committee as EC:03:11:34 under the heading, “to report the status of the enquiry against Dr. K.J. Thomas, Professor, Department of Physics. The minutes further reads: “1. To enquire into the complaint received from Shri. Syam Chandran K.P., Kannur on the appointment of Professor (Dr.) K.J. Thomas, Department of Physics, a three member committee comprising of the following members were constituted: (a) Dr. M. Arunachalam, Professor & Head, Dept. of Animal Science, CUK. (b) Dr. M.R.Prathapachandra Kurup, Professor & Head, Dept. of Chemistry, CUK. (c) Dr. K.B. Vijayakumar, Professor, Dept. of Physics, Mangaluru University and (d) Dr. Pradeep, Professor & Head, Dept. of Physics, NIT, Calicut. 2. On 29th August, 2018, a meeting was convened in which two internal members of the Committee attended. Since no external members were present in the meeting, a fresh meeting was convened on 11.01.2019 and was attended by all the members excluding Dr. K.B. Vijayakumar, who requested to exempt him from the Committee on account of his ill health. 3. The report of the preliminary examination by the Committee had submitted before the Executive Council. Decision: The Executive Council noted the status report and observed that the report submitted by the Committee is ambiguous and hence it is not acceptable to the Executive Council. The Executive Council further resolved to constitute a Sub-Committee of the Executive Council with the following members to scrutinize the application submitted by Prof.(Dr.) K.J. Thomas, Department of Physics, Central University of Kerala for selection as Professor. (i) Dr. Vikraman Nair (ii) Dr. Madhusudhanan Pillai (iii) Dr. C.A. Jayaprakas The Sub-Committee to submit its report to the Executive Council for further consideration.” 4. (i) Dr. Vikraman Nair (ii) Dr. Madhusudhanan Pillai (iii) Dr. C.A. Jayaprakas The Sub-Committee to submit its report to the Executive Council for further consideration.” 4. The case advanced by the petitioner is that, none of these aspects were brought to the notice of the petitioner, but the Sub-Committee constituted by the Executive Council has conducted an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and submitted Ext.P18 enquiry report, stating that petitioner has secured the appointment by exaggerating facts and figures in the application submitted by the petitioner. In the report, it is found that, all the experiences including the teaching experience claimed by the petitioner are not regular experiences, even though it is claimed in the application that he worked as Associate Professor at Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea from 02.03.2009 to 21.06.2012. However, in the Certificate of Employment issued by the above University, it is not mentioned that the position was of Associate Professor. Thereupon, relying upon the attached course syllabus of 2010 and 2011 of the said University, petitioner is named as 'Instructor', and therefore, since the petitioner has worked only as Instructor, he cannot claim the designation of Associate Professor. Hence, it is a false information. 5. So also, it was found that, except the service in Sungkwan University, Suwon, all other services of the petitioner are under fellowships only, and instead of producing experience certificates, he has produced only testimonials and offer of appointments. It is also found that, there is no authentic document to substantiate his claims for experience as the documents submitted by him are individual testimonials, and therefore, petitioner should be asked to produce authentic certificate from the concerned Institutions. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner does not have the essential qualification prescribed by the UGC under Clause A(ii) “A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in research at the University / National level institutions/ industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level and A(iii) - “Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and course, and technology - mediated teaching learning process”. Other findings are also rendered. 6. Other findings are also rendered. 6. The prime contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there are clear cut findings entered by the Committee constituted, and therefore, issuance of Ext.P17 show cause notice asking to explain the circumstances is meaningless and is an arbitrary action, since petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings and explain the circumstances taking into account the application and the documents produced by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, the selection was conducted by the Executive Council taking into account the application submitted by the petitioner along with the documents produced. Thereafter, the Executive Council appointed a Committee, and apparently from Exts.P17 and P18, it is clear that the Committee has given a report favourable to the petitioner, and therefore, before conducting any further enquiry to the disadvantage of the petitioner, petitioner should have been provided with opportunity to explain his side. Having not done so, the entire action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. 7. A short affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The receipt of the complaint from Mr. Shyamchandran K.P. and such related matters are narrated. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the respondents is that, consequent to a preliminary verification of the points raised in the complaint, a Committee of four members was constituted with two faculty members of the University and two faculty members from outside, and two faculty members of the University gave a detailed report on 29.08.2018, pointing out that there was no evidence of Certificates showing the experience for the post and most of his experience was only as a Research Associate or a Research Fellow. There was no proof of production of Ph.D. by the petitioner, though he had claimed so in the application. The report also pointed out that, petitioner has made wrongful claims against cocurricular activities and other cultural activities without any proof, and there was specific finding that in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010, A(i) and A(ii) specified above was violated. Therefore, according to the respondents, a finding was arrived that some of the documents produced by the petitioner were not true. Therefore, according to the respondents, a finding was arrived that some of the documents produced by the petitioner were not true. Other submissions are also made justifying the stand adopted by the University as per Ext.P18 report and Ext.P17 show cause notice. 8. I have heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. The basic contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the entire proceedings up to the drawing of Ext.P18 report was behind the back of the petitioner, since at any point of time, notice was served on the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, there are clear cut findings entered in Ext.P18 report by the Sub-Committee constituted from among the members of the Executive Council, and therefore, Ext.P17 show cause notice, after entering into definite findings is only a mockery of justice, and the entire actions of the respondents are absolutely in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that, petitioner is at liberty to submit suitable objection to Ext.P17 show cause notice dated 17.06.2019 and the Executive Council will consider the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, the enquiry was conducted for the preliminary satisfaction of the Executive Council, and therefore, there are no definite findings entered in the report and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed on the basis of the application and the documents submitted by the petitioner, on issuance of Ext.P1 notification for selection. The Executive Council has appointed the petitioner as per Ext.P10 order, apparently, taking into account the UGC Regulations and the documents produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of Ext.P14 complaint, an enquiry committee was appointed and the Committee has submitted a report. At that stage also, there was no notice given to the petitioner. The Executive Council has appointed the petitioner as per Ext.P10 order, apparently, taking into account the UGC Regulations and the documents produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of Ext.P14 complaint, an enquiry committee was appointed and the Committee has submitted a report. At that stage also, there was no notice given to the petitioner. The factual circumstances leading to such drawing of report and the enquiry conducted happened to be known by the petitioner when Ext.P17 show cause notice was received by him, and thereafter, on receipt of Ext.P18 report, petitioner has found that there are serious findings entered into by the Sub-Committee constituted from among the Executive Council members and those findings are deep-rooted at the issues, causing serious prejudice and disadvantage to the petitioner. 12. In my considered opinion, since there are definite findings entered into by the Sub-Committee in Ext.P18 report, Ext.P17 show cause notice issued to the petitioner to submit objection to the same cannot be treated as a substitute to a notice to the petitioner before the conduct of the enquiry. It is equally important to note that, when definite findings were entered by the Sub-Committee in respect of the application submitted and the documents produced, without providing an opportunity of participation to the petitioner is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also clear that it was a full-fledged enquiry conducted by the Sub-Committee, taking into account all the relevant inputs provided by the petitioner at the time of submission of the application. Moreover, the enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint, by the Executive Council, and therefore, the Council members becoming members of the Sub-Committee is not an accepted way in conducting enquiry, since the Executive Council as such has instituted the enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, possibility of bias cannot be eliminated. 13. Now, coming to the law evolved in the matter of principles of natural justice, it is clear that, basically the rules of natural justice are intended to prevent judicial, administrative and quasi-judicial authorities from doing injustice. One of the predominant rules is that, the authority adjudicating an issue should be impartial and have no interest in the subject issues of adjudication and that a full and fair opportunity shall be provided to a party of being heard. One of the predominant rules is that, the authority adjudicating an issue should be impartial and have no interest in the subject issues of adjudication and that a full and fair opportunity shall be provided to a party of being heard. In the process of judicial interpretation made by the constitutional courts, certain principles are evolved by this time, viz.: (1) a fair hearing; (2) hear the other side; and (3) no man shall be a Judge of his own cause. The said rules are basic and vital in our justice delivery system and any deprivation of such rights to a person renders any action taken, the decision made and opinions formed bad and illegal, liable to be interfered with by the constitutional courts. Which thus means, the proceedings so far undertaken by the respondents like Ext.P18 report and Ext.P17 show cause notice are liable to be vacated by virtue of the inherent deficiencies on the part of the respondents in drawing the report behind the back of the petitioner. 14. It is also clear that the legal rights of the petitioner are clearly violated, since there was a procedure prescribed and after verifying all the documents and details submitted alone, the appointment was made. Therefore, consequent to the appointment, a clear legal right is accrued to the petitioner and that being so, before interfering or tampering with the established rights conferred upon him, necessarily, an opportunity should have been provided. Having not done so, the whole action has become illegal, arbitrary and unfair. It is also evident and clear that proceedings were initiated and findings are rendered so as to attain finality to certain basic issues behind the back of the petitioner, and therefore, even assuming that Ext.P17 is a show cause notice, it is issued ignoring the rights available to the petitioner, without providing an opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances that are poignantly found against the petitioner in Ext.P18 report and it has all the characteristics of finality and whole comprehensiveness, to the total disadvantage of the petitioner, which in turn may lead to bias, while considering reply if any submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P17 show cause notice. 15. 15. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it is expedient and necessary for the interest of justice to quash Ext.P17 show cause notice and Ext.P18 report of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Executive Council from among the members of the Council. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P17 show cause notice and Ext.P18 report drawn by the Sub-Committee, and consequently direct the respondents to constitute a fresh enquiry Committee with members other than the members of the Executive Council, which ordered the enquiry, and one among them shall preferably be a person with subject knowledge in Physics. The Committee shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, enumerating the entire details, receive objection, serve copies of all documents relied upon, and after providing full-fledged opportunity of participation and hearing, finalize the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.