JUDGMENT : Dated this the 12th day of October 2020 The short and simple question involved in the present two writ petitions on behalf the petitioner being the Manager of an aided College known as the Cochin College is whether syndicate or committee can recommend action against him. The petitioner seeks for quashing the impugned orders dated 9.6.2020 and 22.07.2020 and including the enquiry report dated 14.02.2020 being not sustainable in law . 2. The brief history of the case resulting into the filing of the writ petition is as follows: The 3rd respondent is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The petitioner was appointed as a Manager of the College, earlier on 1.6.2019 and presently from 30.11.2019, he continues as the Manager. During the interregnum there are certain civil litigations pending between members of the managing committee regarding the conduct of the election to the board of management, which resulted into the filing of O.S.No.193/2019. The dispute was in relation to certain persons numbering fifty (50) who were allegedly enrolled as members of the society. Thereafter pursuant to the orders of the court the results were declared and the petitioner was appointed as the Manager on 30.11.2019. When an application for receivership was being considered by the civil court, the Secretary of the college filed a counter affidavit dated 30.1.2020 before the munsiff court. It was stated in Paragraph 7(c) that a separate account for receiving amounts including fee and donations towards building fund was opened. Since it resulted into the violation of the provisions of the Act, 4th respondent preferred a complaint to the Vice Chancellor. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted, on the basis of the complaint the University appointed an enquiry commission consisting of three members of the syndicate. Committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, though it did not have power to take action against a Manager. The power of the syndicate is to take disciplinary action only against the teachers and other employees of the University, thus, the entire proceedings initiated by the University as against the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. An application dated 30.1.2020 was filed on behalf of the Secretary in the pending suit No.193/2019 seeking amendment of 7th line in Para (c) of the counter affidavit dated 27.06.2019, which is still pending. 4. An application dated 30.1.2020 was filed on behalf of the Secretary in the pending suit No.193/2019 seeking amendment of 7th line in Para (c) of the counter affidavit dated 27.06.2019, which is still pending. Despite that, the committee was purportedly appointed by the Vice Chancellor to conduct enquiry. Enquiry report dated 14.2.2019 even do not suffices the requirement of law as it is based upon suppositions and on whims and fancies of the enquiry committee, as while recommending or taking an action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Section 56(7) of the Act, commission could not even verify the bank accounts i.e. The allegations with regard to the receipt of donations etc. The entire process is vitiated in law. As per Ext.P12 of W.P.(C)NO.11896/2020, whereby the Syndicate of the University convened on 26.5.2020 resolved to accept the report and recommendations of the enquiry commission appointed under the order of the University dated 14.2.2020. 5. This Court by Ext.P6 order in W.P.(C) No.11848/2020 directed the University to maintain status quo regarding the petitioner's position. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the University has now informed the petitioner that further proceedings are initiated based on the said acceptance of the report which gives the petitioner a fresh cause of action to challenge the notice dated 22.7.2020, vide W.P.(C)No.16793/2020. 6. In Ext.P7 communication dated 22.7.2020, it was noticed that the committee clearly found that petitioner had accepted donations/funds from the students and recommended action against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 56(7) of the Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy of the enquiry report has not been made available to the petitioner. Under the provisions of the Act, it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor, the 1st respondent to initiate action and enquiry has to be done by him. He cannot delegate his function to the syndicate. 8. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.11848/2020 submits that the complainant is the member of the committee and do not deny the fact that the amendment of 7th line in Para (c) of the counter affidavit, is still pending consideration. The 4th respondent do not deny the fact that the power to take action against the Manager is only vests with the Vice Chancellor. 9. The 4th respondent do not deny the fact that the power to take action against the Manager is only vests with the Vice Chancellor. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the University submits that committee has to undertake the task of holding enquiry in view of the directions contained in the order dated 13.1.2020 passed in W.P. (C)No.623/2020 at the instance of the 4th respondent. In the absence of any compliance the University would have faced with contempt but do not deny the provisions of Section 56(7) of the Act 1985. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books as well as the copy of the enquiry report (English Translation) Ext.P15 handed over during the course of hearing. 11. The facts with regard to filing of the counter affidavit dated 27.6.2019 of the Secretary and an amendment application i.e. I.A. No.1/2020- dated 30.1.2020 seeking amendment of 7th line in Para (c) of the counter affidavit, are not in dispute. Section 56(7) 1985 of the MG University Act reads thus: “If the Manager of a private college is guilty of mismanagement, malpractice corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty or disobedience of instructions issued by the government or the University or is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, the Vice Chancellor may after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him and after due enquiry declare him unfit to hold the office of the Manager and require the unitary management or the corporate management, as the case may be, to appoint suitable person as Manager.” 12. On a reading of the aforementioned provisions this Court is having no doubt for taking any action against the Manager with regard to the allegations referred to therein. The power to take action only vests with Vice Chancellor and not with Syndicate. The powers and duties of the syndicate is provided under Section 23 of the Act. Section 23(X) reads as follows: “23. The power to take action only vests with Vice Chancellor and not with Syndicate. The powers and duties of the syndicate is provided under Section 23 of the Act. Section 23(X) reads as follows: “23. Powers of Syndicate:- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the executive powers of the university including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate and subject likewise the Syndicate shall have the following powers namely: (x) to suspend, discharge, dismiss or otherwise take any disciplinary action against teachers and other employees of the University after giving them reasonable opportunity to defend their position.” 13. Action of syndicate by holding the enquiry by constituting three members commission is unjusticiable. The management in view of the provisions of Statute 9(4) in Chapter 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University is not permitted to receive any donation being an offence. Even otherwise report cannot be looked into, for recommendation, as it could not establish any unauthorised receipt. The relevant portion of the enquiry report read thus: “It is recommended that strict action shall be taken against the Manager of Cochin College for removing him from the post under Section 56(7) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act for violating the orders of the Government and University and provisions in the Statute that no unauthorized fund collection either from the students or from parents in connection with the admission of students.” 14. The aforementioned reasoning in my view is not sustainable, but without restrictions for taking an action against the petitioner. Even other wise the provisions of Section 56(7) do not envisage any powers of delegation by the Vice Chancellor to constitute a committee to hold enquiry. The Vice Chancellor is empowered to hold enquiry in accordance with law, and on the basis of the documents, if any . For the reasons aforementioned, impugned orders dated 9.6.2020, Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.11848/2020 and Ext.P7 in W.P. (C)No.16793/2020 is hereby quashed, leaving open the Vice Chancellor to take action in accordance with law, if needed.