JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Dharmnarayan Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 along with Mr. Hemant Gupta in both the appeals. 2. In Writ Appeal No.318 of 2022, the appellants seek to assail the common judgment dated 13.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020 and in Writ Appeal No. 319 of 2022, challenge is made to the same very order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020. Both the writ petitions were filed by the respondent No.1 in these appeals. 3. The date of superannuation of the respondent No. 1 herein, in terms of his appointment, is 10.07.2022. 4. On 24.06.2022, on the basis of submissions made by Mr. Pali on specific instructions received from Mr. A.R. Chourey, Deputy Registrar, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, for short, “the University”, that Dr. Ashok Singh and not the writ petitioner was discharging the functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, status quo was directed to be maintained till 06.07.2022, when the case was directed to be listed. Accordingly, these two writ appeals and Writ Appeal Nos. 317 of 2022 and 321 of 2022, filed by Dr. Ashok Singh are listed together. The appeals filed by Dr. Ashok Singh were accompanied by applications seeking leave to appeal. Today, it is contended by Mr. Dubey that the writ petitioner, who was removed as Vice-Chancellor had joined as Vice- Chancellor and that submission of Mr. Pali on 24.06.2022 was not correct. 5. Dr. Ashok Singh was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University on 02.08.2021 pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.12.2020. In the order of appointment, it was categorically mentioned that his appointment was subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition (S) No.180 of 2020 and Writ Petition (S) No.973 of 2020. Dr. Ashok Singh had not taken any steps for impleading himself in the writ petitions. 6. By an order passed today, applications seeking leave to appeal are dismissed and resultantly, Writ Appeal Nos. 317 of 2022 and 321 of 2022 were dismissed. 7. As agreed upon by learned counsel for the parties, Writ Appeal Nos. 318 and 319 of 2022 are taken up for consideration for final disposal. 8. 6. By an order passed today, applications seeking leave to appeal are dismissed and resultantly, Writ Appeal Nos. 317 of 2022 and 321 of 2022 were dismissed. 7. As agreed upon by learned counsel for the parties, Writ Appeal Nos. 318 and 319 of 2022 are taken up for consideration for final disposal. 8. In Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020, challenge is made to a notification dated 03.01.2020 and in Writ Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020, challenge is made to a notification dated 06.01.2020 and an enquiry report dated 24.12.2019. 9. Certain complaints were received against the writ petitioner as well as some others by the Hon’ble Governor, who is also the Chancellor of the University and by a letter dated 29.08.2018, the same were forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education by the Under Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor. It appears that pursuant to letters of the State Government, the Divisional Commissioner, Sarguja constituted a three member committee on 14.02.2019. Subsequently, the said committee was dissolved and a fresh committee was constituted by the Divisional Commissioner on 19.12.2019 with himself as the Chairman of the committee. The Chairman of the earlier committee constituted on 14.02.2019 was the Additional Collector. The committee submitted a report on 24.12.2019. In the said report, 11 allegations were considered. 10. The State Government being satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, ‘the Adhiniyam, 1973’), without detriment to the interest of the University and that it was expedient in the interest of the University so to do, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the the Adhiniyam, 1973, had directed by notification dated 03.01.2020 that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 23 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 shall, subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule, apply from the date of publication of the notification with immediate effect to the University. 11. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under modified Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the Chancellor of the University, in consultation with the State Government, issued a Notification dated 06.01.2020, whereby, the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, namely, Dr. 11. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under modified Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the Chancellor of the University, in consultation with the State Government, issued a Notification dated 06.01.2020, whereby, the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, namely, Dr. Rohini Prasad, the writ petitioner, was removed from the office of the Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect. 12. By another Notification dated 06.01.2020, the Chancellor had appointed Commissioner, Sarguja Division as the Vice-Chancellor of the University with immediate effect until further orders. 13. It appears that an advertisement dated 30.12.2020 was issued for filling up of the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University and pursuant thereto, Dr. Ashok Singh had come to be appointed as the Vice- Chancellor by an order dated 02.08.2021. 14. The learned Single Judge, by the Judgment dated 13.06.2022, had allowed both the writ petitions by quashing the Notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 and the enquiry report dated 24.12.2019. However, without granting back-wages, the petitioner was held to be entitled to all other benefits notionally. 15. By the judgment under assailment in these two appeals, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020, as also the enquiry were vitiated because of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and enquiry also was conducted without participation of the petitioner. At paragraphs 28 and 29, it was held as follows: “28. Taking into consideration the series of judicial pronouncements made in the recent past some of which referred to in the preceding paragraphs and applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case it is apparently evident that before issuance of the notification of the removal of the petitioner as the Chancellor of Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure P/2 dated 06.01.2020, there was total denial of an opportunity of hearing. That even a show cause notice was not issued at any point of time either during the alleged inquiry conducted or before the order of removal was passed. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents both in the issuance of the notification dated 03.01.2020 as also the notification dated 06.01.2020 is hit by the doctrine of ' audi alteram partem' in its entirety. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents both in the issuance of the notification dated 03.01.2020 as also the notification dated 06.01.2020 is hit by the doctrine of ' audi alteram partem' in its entirety. The petitioner stands condemned unheard coupled with the fact that the impugned Annexure P/1 the inquiry report casts serious stigma upon the petitioner as also of his character, in addition the impugned notifications also shall visit him with serious adverse civil consequences. 29. For the aforesaid reasons this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the two notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 are per-se illegal, bad in law and is also unfair and arbitrary. Thus, the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside/quashed with consequences to follow. As a consequence, both the writ petitions stands allowed, the three impugned orders i.e. the notification dated 03.01.2020 in WPS No. 180/2020 and the inquiry report Annexure P/1 and the notification dated 06.01.2020 in WPS No. 973/2020 stands quashed. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner has been out of the said post from 06.01.2020 onwards applying the principles of “No Work No Pay” it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits during the intervening period, however since the order has been held to be per se illegal, the petitioner would be entitled for all other benefits notionally and the actual benefits to be started from the date of this judgment in the present two writ petitions.” 16. Mr. Pali submits that Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 came up consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary v. State of M.P. & Another, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 328 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had observed that the principles of natural justice stand excluded while exercising power under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 17. It is also submitted that the State Government did not act on the complaints straightway, but had directed to conduct a fact finding enquiry through the Commissioner, Sarguja Division and only pursuant to such report, on being satisfied that condition precedent for invoking Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 had been satisfied, recourse was taken to exercise power under Section 52 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. He has submitted that in an enquiry of the kind that was undertaken, there was no requirement of associating the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that the State Government can invoke powers under Section 52 (1), on receipt of a report or otherwise. 18. Per contra, Mr. Dubey submits that the very constitution of the committee by the Commissioner is illegal, as under Section 14(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, it is only the Chancellor, who is competent to appoint an enquiry officer, and when the foundation falls, all subsequent actions need to be invalidated. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 20. Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as follows: “52. Power of State Government to apply Act in modified form with a view to provide for better administration of University in certain circumstances.- (1) If the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interests of the University, and it is explained in the interest of the University so to do, it may by notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein, direct that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 shall, as from the date specified in the notification (hereinafter in this section referred to as the appointed date), apply to the University subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule.” 21. Section 14(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, on which reliance is placed by Mr. Dubey reads as follows : 14. Emoluments and conditions of service of Kulpati, term of office of and vacancy in the office of Kulpati. Section 14(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, on which reliance is placed by Mr. Dubey reads as follows : 14. Emoluments and conditions of service of Kulpati, term of office of and vacancy in the office of Kulpati. – XXX XXX XXX (3) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise and after making such enquiries as may be deemed necessary, it appears to the Kuladhipati that the Kulpati- (i) has made default in performing any duty imposed on him, by or under this Act; or (ii) has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the University; or (iii) is incapable of managing the affairs of the University the Kuladhipati may, notwithstanding the fact that the terms of office of the Kulpati has not expired by an order in writing stating the reasons therein, require the Kulpati to relinquish his office as from such date as may be specified in the order. 22. Modified Sections 13 and 14 read as follows: “THE THIRD SCHEDULE [See Section 52]” 1. Sections 13 and 14. - For Sections 13 and 14 substitute:- “14. The Kulpati. - Kulpati shall be appointed by the Kuladhipati in consultation with the State Government and may be removed by the Kuladhipati in the like manner.” 23. The argument of Mr. Dubey that in terms of Section 14(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, it is only the Chancellor who is competent to appoint an enquiry officer, is misplaced. In the first instance, with the invocation of Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, modified Section 14 would come into play, which, as noticed earlier, only provides for appointment of Vice- Chancellor by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government and that he may remove Vice-Chancellor in the like manner. That apart, Section 14(3) only provides that enquiry may be conducted when deemed necessary. 24. Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 does not envisage holding of an enquiry, per se. Power under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 can be exercised by the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise and having regard to the language employed, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Dubey that should the State Government decide to conduct an enquiry of a fact-finding nature into some allegations, necessarily, the persons against whom allegations are made, have to be associated in such enquiry. Dubey that should the State Government decide to conduct an enquiry of a fact-finding nature into some allegations, necessarily, the persons against whom allegations are made, have to be associated in such enquiry. However, it must be said that the State Government should be satisfied on objective consideration on the material available on record that a situation had arisen in which the administration of University could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 25. In the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra), Section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which is pari materia with the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, had fallen for consideration. In Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that by operation thereof the applicability of Sections 13 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 stood modified and the need to conduct a regular enquiry against the petitioner was obviated. On issuance of the notification under Section 52(1) and on and with effect from the said date the Vice-Chancellor, by operation of Section 52(4) shall, notwithstanding his term of office had not been expired, is required to vacate his office. 26. The contention advanced that the petitioner therein was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned notification under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and that the order passed in violation thereof offends the principles of natural justice was negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that Section 52 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 engrafts an exception thereto, and therefore, by necessary implication, the application of principles of natural justice has been excluded. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in view of the statutory animation, the contention that the petitioner is entitled to a notice and an opportunity before taking action under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 would be self-defeating. Considering Section 52 in juxtaposition to Section 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the obvious inference would be that the principle of natural justice stands excluded. 28. Therefore, setting aside the notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the notifications cannot be sustained. 29. In view of the above discussion, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs.