ORDER : Heard Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. N. Anula, learned counsel for the respondent-University, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 2. The disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in the order of removal, dated 13.08.2001, issued by the first respondent herein, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Entomology in the year, 1993 and was posted at Agricultural College, Bapatla and her probation was also declared on 25.04.1997. Alleging unauthorised absence from duties, a Charge Memo, dated 27.02.2001, framing as many as two charges, came to be issued by the Registrar of the respondent-University. The said charges are as under : “Charge-1: She has never done justice to her job as she was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 04.03.1997 by applying leave in piecemeal. Charge-2: She has wilfully avoided joining duty despite being instructed to do so by the University, when the Medical Board has given opinion that she is fit for duty. Thus she has disobeyed the instructions of the University”. 4. In response to the said Charge Memo and the charges contained therein, petitioner herein offered her explanation, dated 04.04.2001, which was acknowledged by the office of the respondent-University on 10.04.2001. Subsequently, the first respondent-University, on the ground that the said explanation was neither satisfactory nor convincing, issued a show cause notice vide Memo No.318/Ser.UV/A1/2001, dated 08.05.2001, calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why her services in the University should not be dispensed with, with effect from 03.10.2000. Responding to the said show cause notice, on 24.05.2001, petitioner herein submitted an explanation/reply, obviously, with a request to drop further proceedings. Thereafter, the Registrar-first respondent herein, once again, reiterating the earlier stand that the explanation was neither satisfactory nor convincing, passed an order vide proceedings in Rc.No.1818/Ser.IV/A1/2001, dated 13.08.2001, ordering removal of the petitioner from service with effect from 03.10.2000. 5. In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the aforesaid order of removal, passed by the first respondent herein, this Writ Petition came to be instituted on 04.09.2001. The composite High Court on 05.09.2001, ordered Rule Nisi. 6. Responding to the notices received from this Court, the first respondent-University authorities filed a counter-affidavit. 5. In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the aforesaid order of removal, passed by the first respondent herein, this Writ Petition came to be instituted on 04.09.2001. The composite High Court on 05.09.2001, ordered Rule Nisi. 6. Responding to the notices received from this Court, the first respondent-University authorities filed a counter-affidavit. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order of removal passed by the first respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the A.P.Agricultural University (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1965 and the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, having proposed to impose major punishment, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent-University authorities in not holding regular enquiry as contemplated in the aforesaid Rules. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the Appointing Authority, for the post of Assistant Professor, is the Board of Management and, before issuing the Charge Memo, no approval of the Board was taken. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent-University contends that, in view of the continuous unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duties, first respondent-University authorities, after scrupulously following the Rules and Regulations and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner only, passed the impugned order of removal, as such, the impugned action cannot be faulted. It is also the submission of the learned counsel, reiterating the counter-affidavit, that, since the petitioner herein did not ask for the oral enquiry, the said occasion did not arise for the respondents to hold such an enquiry. 8. In exercise of the powers conferred by Statute 9 of the Additional Statutes made by the Board of Management, with the prior approval of the Government, the Board of Management of the A.P.Agricultural University made the Regulations called the A.P.Agricultural University (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1965. According to Clause (4) of Regulation No.13, the authority which can impose the penalty of removal from service is the Appointing Authority and, in the instant case, the Appointing Authority, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is the Board of Management under Section 20 of the A.P.Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Act, 1963. According to Clause (4) of Regulation No.13, the authority which can impose the penalty of removal from service is the Appointing Authority and, in the instant case, the Appointing Authority, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is the Board of Management under Section 20 of the A.P.Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Act, 1963. Clause (7) of Regulation 13 specifically stipulates that the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken under Clause (4) shall be reduced to framing of definite charges and the same shall be communicated in writing to the employee concerned, calling upon the employee to submit explanation. It is also not in controversy that vide Memo No.32631/SC/2001, dated 16.08.2001, first respondent-University adopted the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, while dealing with the major penalties, it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Rules. Rule 20 of the said Rules deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules provides for elaborate procedure to be adhered to. In the instant case, first respondent herein inflicted the punishment of removal from service without adhering to the said mandatory requirements of law and, on the other hand, simply called for the explanation and, by recording that the same was not satisfactory and convincing, passed the impugned order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court a document, dated 13.02.2001, which contained an endorsement that a strong Charge Memo should be issued. The same discloses the pre-determined conclusion on the part of the respondents. Legislature makes the Rules and Regulations and the laws for their strict adherence. Therefore, the authorities are required to scrupulously adhere to the provisions of law. In the instant case, by completely giving a go-bye to the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural University (Conditions of Service) Regulations and the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in general and Rule 21 of the said Rules in particular, which were adopted by the first respondent-University, vide Memo No.32631/SC/2001, dated 16.08.2001, the respondent-University authorities resorted to the impugned action. The mode and manner, in which the first respondent-University authorities resorted to the impugned action of termination of the petitioner herein from services, cannot be approved by this Court and is highly iniquitous and reprehensible. The mode and manner, in which the first respondent-University authorities resorted to the impugned action of termination of the petitioner herein from services, cannot be approved by this Court and is highly iniquitous and reprehensible. Without appointing any Enquiry Officer and without affording appropriate and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of removal vide Proc.No.1818/Ser-IV/A1/2001, dated 13.08.2001, issued by the Registrar, Administrative Office, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad-first respondent herein. It is needless to observe that, in complete deviation of the mandatory requirements of law, first respondent herein passed the impugned order, as such, there shall be a consequential direction to the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner herein into service with all monetary and other service benefits, including seniority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.