JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present writ petition emanates from the judgment and order dated 18/01/2007 to 29/1/2007 passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 2 of 2005 filed by the Respondent challenging his dismissal order dated 28.10.2005. 2. The relevant facts briefly stated are as under:- 2.1. The respondent was a lecturer in the petitioner No. 2-College. A complaint dated 08.05.2005 was received by the University wherein it was alleged that the respondent had demanded money from two students. The respondent was called before the Vice-Chancellor, to explain the allegations made, he admitted to having accepted the money from the students. 2.2. On 09.05.2005, the respondent addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor wherein he admitted that he had not obtained prior permission of the University before undertaking outside work and that he had received Rs. 50,000/-, by cheque from the Gurukul for teaching the Sadhus of the Gurukul. 2.3. On 12.05.2005, the respondent submitted a letter dated 12.05.2005 making some allegations against the colleagues in the Department. 2.4. On 18.05.2005, the respondent tendered his explanation by letter dated 18.05.2005 to the Registrar wherein he once again accepted to having taken money from the Gurukul. 2.5. On 18.05.2005, the respondent addressed another letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University wherein he admitted that he had committed mistake of obtaining monetary benefit from the Gurukul for teaching the Sadhus. 2.6. On 22.07.2005, the respondent addressed a letter to the Principal of the petitioner No. 2, wherein he once again admitted to having demanded and accepted money for teaching the sadhus. 2.7. On 25.07.2005, the letter dated 12.05.2005 addressed by the petitioner was resubmitted through the Registrar. 2.8. On 29.08.2005, the respondent by this letter desired to call back the earlier letters submitted to the University. He mentioned that he had taken money from the Gurukul and admitted that it was his mistake. 2.9. On 31.08.2005 as authorized by the Syndicate, the Vice Chancellor constituted a Committee to look into the allegations against the respondent. The respondent appeared before the Committee. The Committee examined the entire correspondence, statements of students, colleague's as well as the respondent. 2.10. On 16.09.2005, the Committee submitted its report to the University, the Syndicate of the University resolved to accept the report of the Committee and to take further action on the basis thereof. 2.11. The respondent appeared before the Committee. The Committee examined the entire correspondence, statements of students, colleague's as well as the respondent. 2.10. On 16.09.2005, the Committee submitted its report to the University, the Syndicate of the University resolved to accept the report of the Committee and to take further action on the basis thereof. 2.11. On 20.09.2005 on the basis of the report, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent. The report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate which accepted the same and granted authority to take necessary action. 2.12. On 01.10.2005, the respondent submitted his explanation to the charges raised against him. He admitted the charges raised and undertook to change his attitude in future and not to take any outside work without prior permission of the University. 2.13. On 21.10.2005, the Committee considered the explanation tendered by the respondent and submitted its report to the University. 2.14. On 28.10.2005, the Syndicate of the University accepted the findings and recommendations of the Committee, and resolved to dismiss Shri Vijay Raghvan from service with immediate effect. 3. The respondent challenged the legality of the charge sheet, the Departmental inquiry and the order of dismissal before the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 2 of 2005. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has partly allowed the Appeal. The Tribunal has quashed and set aside the action of the constitution of the fact finding committee, the charge sheet issued on the basis thereof, and the consequent dismissal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Vice Chancellor was competent and authorized by the Syndicate to constitute the Committee. The Syndicate had duly authorized the Vice Chancellor to constitute any committee and such a delegation of authority would not be hit by the vice of further delegation since it was not a legislative power. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent had appeared before the Committee and had not raised any grievance regarding the validity of its constitution or against the conduct of any of its members. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate, after considering the same approved the report. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate, after considering the same approved the report. The consequential findings and directions, based on the finding that the Committee was illegally constituted, are therefore erroneous and are required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in fact and in law in holding that the constitution of the Committee and the reports submitted by the Committee were against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the respondent had never objected to the constitution of the Committee. Even in the Appeal, before the Tribunal, it was not the case of the respondent-appellant that the report of the Committee suffered from bias and was therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice. The finding of bias is therefore, unwarranted in fact and law. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has made unwarranted personal remarks against the vice-chancellor and the Registrar of the University. The remarks are clearly unwarranted and are required to be expunged. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in recording a finding that the Vice-Chancellor had not submitted the complaint received by the University before the Syndicate. It is submitted that the report of the Committee was submitted before the Syndicate and the contents thereof were duly approved. The finding of the Tribunal is therefore ex-facie erroneous and illegal. The presumptions inferred by the tribunal are, therefore, unwarranted. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that tribunal erred in fact and in law in holding that the report submitted by the committee was not the report of the Committee. It is submitted that the findings recorded are in absence of their being any pleading or evidence in this regard and are a result of an exercise which is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal erred having held that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct under Clause 17, as charged by the petitioner, erred in remanding the issue for reconsideration of the Syndicate. 12. Learned advocate Mr. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal erred having held that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct under Clause 17, as charged by the petitioner, erred in remanding the issue for reconsideration of the Syndicate. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the tribunal erred in holding that the charges framed in the charge sheet were vague when it self has recorded that no fault can be found with the contents of the charges. The apparent contradiction in the findings recorded by the tribunal demonstrates that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the tribunal in holding that the Committee was predetermined, predecisive, biased and under effect of its earlier report. It is submitted that the Committee in its wisdom recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the service. There is nothing on record to suggest that the recommendation was predetermined, predecisive, biased and under effect of its earlier report as alleged. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the tribunal erred in holding that the Syndicate while confirming the recommendation made by the Committee was misdirected by the office note placed before it. The tribunal overlooked the fact that the Committee constituted was in furtherance of the authority vested by the Syndicate in the Vice-chancellor, and therefore, the noting that the report was of the committee appointed by the Syndicate was understood in its true letter and spirit. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the resolution of the Syndicate without the same being subject matter of challenge before it. He has further submitted that the impugned order is therefore without jurisdiction. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the tribunal erred in holding that the order of dismissal was illegal having regard to the fact that the respondent had admitted to the charge framed against him. He has further submitted that the tribunal has accepted the settled legal position that if a charge is accepted by the delinquent, there I no requirement to conduct an inquiry. However, without distinguishing the legal position emanating from the said judgments, the tribunal has proceeded to remand the matter for de novo hearing. 17. He has further submitted that the tribunal has accepted the settled legal position that if a charge is accepted by the delinquent, there I no requirement to conduct an inquiry. However, without distinguishing the legal position emanating from the said judgments, the tribunal has proceeded to remand the matter for de novo hearing. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that because of the impugned judgment is even otherwise contrary to the facts on record and in law and hence requires to be quashed and set aside. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has submitted that the order of the tribunal is ex facie erroneous and contrary law; the tribunal by the impugned judgment has divested the vice chancellor of the University of his fundamental executive powers. The impugned order if not stayed would adversely affect the administration of the University. Further having held that the respondent was guilty of the charges raised against him there was no jurisdiction for remanding the matter to the syndicate for reconsideration. It is therefore, prayed that the interim relief as prayed for may kindly be granted. 19. Per contra learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal does not require any interference as the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. He has submitted that the tribunal after examination of the relevant facts has concluded that the entire proceedings against the respondent were vitiated as the Committee was not properly constituted. He has submitted that the respondent was served as a lecturer and had in fact rendered his service as the Assistant in Swamy Narayan Gurukul without any consideration since he was known them since last seven years. 20. He has submitted that tribunal after considering all the relevant aspects have in fact, issued the direction against the petitioner to undertake the exercise from the stage of constituting Finding Fact Inquiry Committee (FFIC). 21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties. The documents as pointed out by them are also perused. 22. The respondent was serving as a lecturer at Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya of M.S. University of Baroda. A complaint was received dated 08.05.2005 from two students studying in the BSM to that effect he had charged Rs. The documents as pointed out by them are also perused. 22. The respondent was serving as a lecturer at Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya of M.S. University of Baroda. A complaint was received dated 08.05.2005 from two students studying in the BSM to that effect he had charged Rs. 50,000/- along with other various allegations. It was further alleged that the respondent had also committed irregularities of supplying papers and accordingly he had demanded Rs. 35,000/- from them. 23. A perusal of the complaint dated 08.05.2005 reveals that there are serious allegations levelled against the respondent of acceptance of money from two students (Sadhus). Further it was alleged that the respondent has sent 10 questions of each paper to them saying that 40% or 50% percent questions may figure from the same. On 09.05.2005 a discussion took place in this regard with the University in the presence of the Vice chancellor. Two In-charge members as well as senior professor were present when the respondent admitted that he has taken some amount to teach Sadhus. The respondent also disclosed that without taking previous permission to teach outside the University, he taught two sadhus of Gurukul and received Rs. 50,000/- by cheque from the Gurukul. Thereafter, necessary explanation was called from him and it appears that in response to the explanation sought, appellant submitted one letter dated 18.05.2005 disclosing that he had sent 10 questions of each paper to them assuring that 40% or 50% percent questions may figure from the same. Thereafter, various communications were exchanged inter se and on 31.08.2005, the Vice Chancellor firmed a Committee comprising of five members (one chairman, one convener and three members). The Committee, thereafter, inquired into the aforesaid aspects and submitted its report forwarding the necessary documents. A necessary inquiry was undertaken by the Committee and report was submitted on 16.09.2005. After the aforesaid report, a charge sheet dated 20.09.2005 was issued to the respondent inter alia containing three charges: (A) He has been involved in outside teaching/non-teaching activities and accepting monetary consideration. (B) He has been found negligent in performance of his duties while holding different positions such as convener-Admission committee, co-coordinator-self Finance courses, Tabulator, Chairman and Examiner. (C) He has shown rude, arrogant and aggressive behaviour with teaching staff, Principal and students of Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. 24. (B) He has been found negligent in performance of his duties while holding different positions such as convener-Admission committee, co-coordinator-self Finance courses, Tabulator, Chairman and Examiner. (C) He has shown rude, arrogant and aggressive behaviour with teaching staff, Principal and students of Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. 24. The respondent herein submitted his explanation to the charge sheet vide letter dated 01.10.2005 addressed to the opponent University stating that in response to the charge A he was already accepting before the Vice chancellor and before the Committee that he has accepted the money, however, he has not accepted other two charges. After considering his explanation, the Committee submitted the report dated 31.08.2005 incorporating the necessary facts as well as the proceedings undertaken by it. The Committee has further recommended that the examination declared in April, 2005 is required to be conducted at the earliest since the students shall not suffer for no fault from their side. The Committee found charges proved against the respondent and thereafter the report was placed before the Syndicate of the University. On 28.10.2006, the Syndicate of the University accepted the findings and the recommendations of the Committee, which has resolved to dismiss the respondent with immediate effect. 25. The dismissal order was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 2 of 2005. After a prolix judgment dated 18/01/2007 to 29/1/2007 (emphasis supplied), the tribunal has observed thus:- "7.3. It appears that in aforesaid manner, appellant herein voluntarily disclosed the facts/misconduct committed by him which amounts to "admission" in the eye of law. It appears that this statement was submitted by the appellant in presence of (I) Vice Chancellor, (2) In charge Principal Mr. Y.B. Oza and (3) Senior Supervisor Mr. V.B. Vyas. "7.6. It appears that explanation was submitted by the appellant vide letter dated 18.05.2005 (Annexure-D collectively, p. 23). Appellant herein did not raise any objection to the charge sheet saying that (1) the charges are stale or (2) charges are vague, which are beyond his understanding, or, (3) any other objection. Y.B. Oza and (3) Senior Supervisor Mr. V.B. Vyas. "7.6. It appears that explanation was submitted by the appellant vide letter dated 18.05.2005 (Annexure-D collectively, p. 23). Appellant herein did not raise any objection to the charge sheet saying that (1) the charges are stale or (2) charges are vague, which are beyond his understanding, or, (3) any other objection. It appears that in the background of letter dated 09.05.2005 (P. 104 to 106), submitted by the appellant, appellant admitted acceptance of money and disclosed that he has taken money from them (not from Sadhus being complainants of complaint dated 08.05.2005 but from Sadhus (1) Santvallabh and (2) Gnanvallabh, which names appear from the record of inquiry, duly produced on the record of this case before this Tribunal) for teaching long back. It was also admitted by the appellant that he has also signed and taken the amount by cheque. No figure appears to have been stated in the reply but facts remain that the same was Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only). In addition to this, it was also disclosed by the appellant that, he has sent 10 questions of each paper to Sadhus saying that 40% to 50% questions may be from this. 7.7. In my considered opinion, while giving explanation to the charge sheet, appellant has not raised any objection against charge sheet like stated above. 26. Ultimately, the tribunal in paragraph no. 20 has observed thus: @"Facts remain that, disclosure/admission by the appellant about teaching two sadhus out of BSM and acceptance of Rs. 50,000/- for the same does not appear due to threat given or coercion or misappropriation applied. In that case of the circumstances, there is not question to quash (1) disclosure/admission made by the appellant, but, it appears that, it certainly requires consideration that in what background the same was made and how it came to be treated further. It appears that, if Vice Chancellor/Registrar, as the case may be would have put disclosure/admission, coupled with complaint dated 08.05.2005, received from two sadhus, before the Syndicate in any of its meetings out of six held, before FFIC came to be constitute vide letter dated 31.08.2005, Syndicate would have considered the same properly and things would have been in its own course. Admittedly, this was not done and therefore, whole issue traveled in wrong direction, which resulted into birth of this appeal and this judgment and therefore, it appears to me that things which were required to be done by Syndicate, does not require to consider the same, for the reason that when the things are required to be done in a particular manner, it should be done accordingly only." 27. Thus, the tribunal has specifically observed that if there is admission of guilt, no inquiry is necessary and since the respondent/appellant had admitted the misconduct, defined vide clause (17) of Chapter XLI of opponent University Hand book. Despite the aforesaid findings, the tribunal set aside the order of dismissal dated 28.10.2005 and remanded the matter to the petitioner University from the stage of constituting FFIC. 28. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the prayers made by the respondent (Appellant) before the tribunal, the same are reproduced are as under:- "(a) To admit and allow this appeal. (b) To quash and set aside the charge sheet at Annexure 'F', alleged departmental inquiry and the order of dismissal dated 28.10.2005 at Annexure -H and direct the respondent to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits on the post of lecture with effect from the date of order of dismissal as if the impugned order is not passed. (c) To pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstance of the case may required." 29. A perusal of the prayer clause made by the petitioner in his appeal suggests that the petitioner has not challenged the constitution of Committee as well as the authority vested in the Syndicate and the Vice chancellor. The Resolutions passed by the Syndicate on 31.08.2005, 16.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 are also not challenged by the respondent. 30. The memo of the appeal filed by the respondent before the tribunal also does not reveal that the respondent has raised any contention challenging the departmental proceedings on the violation of delegation of power to the Vice chancellor as well as the Syndicate. There is not a whisper in the averments of the appeal challenging the aforesaid resolutions and the delegation of powers under the statutory rules. 31. The tribunal has further observed that despite their being no prayer made in this regard, the matter is required to be remanded to the petitioner University. 32. There is not a whisper in the averments of the appeal challenging the aforesaid resolutions and the delegation of powers under the statutory rules. 31. The tribunal has further observed that despite their being no prayer made in this regard, the matter is required to be remanded to the petitioner University. 32. In the considered opinion of this court the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal fall beyond the contour of the pleadings in wake of the fact that the respondent in his appeal has not challenged the constitution of committee and the exercise of powers by Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor. The entire exercise of examining the various provisions of statutory rules governing the petitioner university has been carried out by the Tribunal on oral submissions. The Tribunal has examined the various provisions though no pleadings are made in the appeal memo in this regard. 33. At this stage I may with profit quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Amina Marwa Sabreen A(Minor) Versus State Of Kerala, 2018 (14) SCC 193 : "10 Entire thrust of the argument of the petitioners was that the aforesaid G.O. dated January 30, 2017, which carves out NK II and makes them ineligible for admission to medical and allied courses, including MBBS/BDS, is unconstitutional as it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. This document does not find a mention in the writ petition and not even filed along with the writ petition, but was filed as an additional document subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. In these circumstances, the preliminary submission which is raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Kerala was that when there is no prayer to quash the aforesaid G.O. dated January 30, 2017, it is not permissible for the petitioners to challenge the validity of this notification by way of oral arguments. We find substance in this preliminary objection raised by the respondent State." The Apex Court has refused to quash the document which did not find a mention in the writ petition by way of oral arguments. We find substance in this preliminary objection raised by the respondent State." The Apex Court has refused to quash the document which did not find a mention in the writ petition by way of oral arguments. In the present case the Tribunal has quashed the approval and resolutions of the syndicate and the Vice Chancellor on the basis of oral submission, though the same do not find any reference neither in the appeal memo nor in the prayer clause. 34. Furthermore, the directions issued by the tribunal are contrary to the findings recorded therein. Though, the Tribunal has held that no departmental proceeding is required to be conducted in view of the admission of the guilt by the Respondent; simultaneously, directions are issued to the petitioner-University to conduct the same from the stage of constituting the Fact Finding Inquiry Committee (FFIC). Thus, the impugned order of tribunal suffers from non application of mind and it travels beyond the scope of the prayers and pleadings made by the respondent in his appeal. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgment and order judgment dated 18/01/2007 to 29/1/2007 of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.