JUDGMENT : AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition and as counsel for the respondent Committee of Management in connected Writ Petition being Writ (A) No. 18909 of 2023 as well and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the University in both the matters and Dr. Sudha Garg, who has personally appeared being respondent no. 3 in present petition and being petitioner in connected Writ Petition being Writ (A) No. 18909 of 2023. 2. Writ (A) No. 20031 of 2023 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Hindu College Morabadabd whereas Writ Petition No. 18909 of 2023 has been filed by Dr. Garg, Associate Professor and Head of Departmental of Zoology at Hindu College Moradabad. 3. Dr. Garg is a caveator in Writ (A) No. 20031 of 2023 and pleadings have been exchanged between the contesting parties including University. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order of Vice Chancellor dated 4.10.2023, and therefore, are being heard and decided together taking writ petition 20031 of 2023 as a leading petition. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Dr. Garg, namely third respondent was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management of the institution vide order dated 18.2.2019 and the same day she was served with a charge-sheet containing as many as eight charges. Dr. Garg right from the beginning has been questioning the authority of the Committee of Management to hold enquiry against her not only for the reason that charges were ill founded but also that Committee of Management was not entitled to hold any enquiry for she being appointed upon recommendation of Director of Higher Education. According to her, therefore, any enquiry could have been conducted only at the instance of State Government through Director of Higher Education. Dr. Garg submitted her reply to the charge sheet on 10.4.2019 denying all eight charges, but the enquiry committee after holding enquiry into the charges, returned findings to the effect that all the charges against Dr. Garg stood proved vide its report dated 30th July,2019. Dr. Garg was served with a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report on 3rd August, 2019 to which she submitted her reply on 14th August, 2019. The Committee of Management after having deliberations upon reply submitted by Dr. Garg stood proved vide its report dated 30th July,2019. Dr. Garg was served with a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report on 3rd August, 2019 to which she submitted her reply on 14th August, 2019. The Committee of Management after having deliberations upon reply submitted by Dr. Garg found it appropriate to inflict upon her major penalty of dismissal/termination from service by adopting resolution to this effect on 27th August, 2019, the same stood forwarded to the Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University for its approval. The Vice Chancellor passed an order dated 25th August, 2022, which came to be challenged before this Court by Committee of Management as well as Dr. Garg vide Writ (A) No. 14616 of 2022 and 19389 of 2022 respectively. The order was set aside by this Court under its detailed judgment and order dated 17th July, 2023 and directions got issued to the Vice Chancellor to take decision afresh after giving personal hearing to the parties on a fixed date i.e. 11.8.2023. Dr. Garg was also directed to be paid subsistence allowance since her status as was during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, was maintained as such and joining and payment of regular salary was held to be subject to the fresh decision by Committee of Management and the Vice Chancellor. Dr. Garg claimed to have appeared before Vice Chancellor with detailed reply afresh filed by her before Vice Chancellor on 5.8.2023. The Vice Chancellor proceeded to hear the matter on merits afresh and after hearing rival parties a passed final order on 4.10.2023 holding that Dr. Garg having not been found guilty of any of charges, approval could not be granted to the termination of her service as proposed by the Committee of Management and since determination of point nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been made in her favour, Dr. Garg was held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is this above order that has been challenged by the Committee of Management as well as Dr. Garg in their respective writ petitions. 5. One of the arguments advanced by Ms. 2, 3 and 4 have been made in her favour, Dr. Garg was held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is this above order that has been challenged by the Committee of Management as well as Dr. Garg in their respective writ petitions. 5. One of the arguments advanced by Ms. Sudha Garg appearing in present petition was that she having been recommended for appointment by Higher Education Service Commission for appointment in the institution in question, the Committee of Management may be a de jure appointing authority for the purpose of giving appointment and joining to the petitioner but de facto power lies with the State to make recommendations. It is in this context she submitted that in view of Statute No. 14.05 of the First Statute of the University, there was no contract of employment as such stricto Sensu between her and the Committee of Management to attract provisions contained under the statute nos. 14.06 and 14.07-A. 6. She further submitted that charge-sheet issued by the Manager/Secretary of the Committee of Management of the institution who was not competent to either hold enquiry or issue charge-sheet. 7. The argument advanced by Dr. Garg appearing in person, was that she performed her duties honestly and to the best of her ability, knowledge and skill and her integrity was also certified as teacher and head of department but on account of lack of proper infrastructural facilities to be provided by the management, she felt compelled to suggest the students not to go for optional subjects of cytology or Entomology. She claimed to have had never any grudge against either management or colleagues but of course had the one against the system. She always tried to give best eduction to the students. She submitted her reply in detailed on 10.04.2019 to the charge-sheet served upon her on 18.2.2019, which was not considered by the enquiry officer and charges were not proved by evidence and the enquiry was also vitiated for want of reasonable opportunity of hearing. She had, as claimed, even demanded number of documents which were filed on behalf of the management in support of the charges that were led before the enquiry committee but neither any information in relation to all those documents was furnished, nor the documents demanded were supplied to her. She submitted that even copy of enquiry report was never supplied to her. She submitted that even copy of enquiry report was never supplied to her. It was further submitted that in respect of those witnesses who were examined, petitioner was not permitted to even cross examine them and claimed it to be fully reflected from the enquiry report that no date was fixed to cross examine and thus findings that were returned, were all ex-parte. She further submitted that vice chancellor was justified in holding that enquiry was not held as per procedure prescribed and in the matter of oral enquiry for the purposes of inflicting a major penalty it was necessary for the enquiry committee to have fixed specific dates to permit cross examination of the witnesses that were produced by the management in support of the charges inasmuch students who had appeared with their respective Ids. 8. It was also argued that in the matter of departmental proceedings when the enquiry was to be conducted and charges to be framed as such that may invite major penalty, it was always to be looked into as to what kind of intrinsic material had been placed before the enquiry committee against the delinquent employee. It was further submitted that in support of basic charge that petitioner proceeded to close down the department to force students not to opt for optional subjects, there was not supportive material worth evidenciary value. It was further submitted that at no point of time any such material was placed even before the enquiry officer which could have proved that notice in question was got published by the petitioner. She further submitted that in the matter of departmental enquiry, she led evidence and was always trying her level best to rebut the allegations and material evidence led in respect of the charge-sheet but enquiry committee failed to discuss all these details that were there in her reply and as such no finding has come to be returned in the finding part of the enquiry report that petitioner failed to hold examination as per instructions issued by the University. She also argued that those who came to be examined by submitting their written submissions before Enquiry Committee, were not permitted to be cross examined. She also argued that those who came to be examined by submitting their written submissions before Enquiry Committee, were not permitted to be cross examined. If there were certain crucial witnesses in so far as running of the department and academic activities in department were concerned, petitioner was required to be given an opportunity to cross examine but being not given any opportunity, she submitted that entire departmental enquiry was biased and so report could not be sustained so as to maintain the order of dismissal/ termination from service. She also submitted that Vice Chancellor had not been justified in sustaining charge no. 1 and 6 inasmuch as her entire reply had not been considered by the Vice Chancellor in its correct perspective. She submitted that reply submitted by her before Vice Chancellor after matter was remitted by this Court in the first round of litigation and yet points raised in reply as point nos. 2.6, 2.7 and no. 2.8 have not been considered at all. She submitted that Vice Chancellor was also not justified in affirming the findings of enquiry report and sustaining the charge nos. 1 and 6. 9. Sri Rohit Pandey on the contrary has argued that Vice Chancellor was justified in passing order impugned, inasmuch as Vice Chancellor was well within his right to examine as to whether departmental enquiry was properly held and findings returned were proper or not and whether principles of natural justice were followed or not in the matter of holding of the departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. He has taken the Court to the Statute 14.04 and 14.07 under which Vice Chancellor was well within his duty and power to examine all these aspects of the matter and cannot be faulted with for findings so returned in the order impugned. He, however, disputed the authority of the Vice Chancellor to interfere with the order of punishment and as an appellate authority and so it was appropriate to permit employer/disciplinary authority to reconsider the imposition of punishment of a lessor degree. 10. Sri I.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 2023 Committee of Management has assailed the order of Vice Chancellor on three grounds: firstly on the ground that Vice Chancellor while sustaining charge no. 10. Sri I.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 2023 Committee of Management has assailed the order of Vice Chancellor on three grounds: firstly on the ground that Vice Chancellor while sustaining charge no. 1 to 6, was not justified in finally returning a finding that none of charges was proved against delinquent employee, and therefore, she deserved reinstatement with salary. Second argument was that as per Statute 14.03 read with 14.04, where charge was proved against delinquent employee, Management was entitled to dismiss such employee from employment. He took the Court to relevant statutes for this purpose and also appendix B in which, according to him, point nos. 1 and 5 were established for misconduct upon which findings had come to be returned in the enquiry report, and therefore, Committee of Management was fully justified in dismissing the petitioner from service; and third, Vice Chancellor was not justified in holding that punishment was disproportionate in any manner to the charges proved. 11. Mr. Singh submitted, once integrity was held to be doubtful or otherwise not worth certification by the employer, such an employee could always be dismissed from employment. He has argued that manner and method in which department was being run as had borne out from the departmental enquiry, the Committee of Management had no other option but to dismiss her from service. He submitted that charge of closing branches in respect of optional subjects like cytology or Entomology was serious one. He submitted that Dr. Garg ought to have contacted the employer for this purpose and better solution could have been obtained, instead of pasting any notice or forcing students as per findings returned in the enquiry report, not to go for these two optional subjects. He further submitted that Statute 31 prescribed Committee of Management to be appointing authority and Section 60-d authorized management to forward bills for the purposes of payment of salary and so it was a disciplinary authority. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and Dr. He further submitted that Statute 31 prescribed Committee of Management to be appointing authority and Section 60-d authorized management to forward bills for the purposes of payment of salary and so it was a disciplinary authority. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and Dr. Garg who appeared in person and having noticed the arguments so advanced and having perused the records, I find three points to be emerging in the present petition: (a) Whether a recognized Committee of Management of recognized/affiliated degree College of University is empowered to institute disciplinary proceedings and hold departmental enquiry against teachers of the college who are appointed on recommendations of the Higher Education Service Commission. (b) Whether the departmental enquiry held by the enquiry committee and consequential decision taken by the disciplinary authority has been as per procedure prescribed for and principles laid down in various authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court that govern departmental enquiries. (c) Whether Vice Chancellor is justified in holding that no charges have been proved to entitle Dr. Sudha Garg reinstatement even while sustaining charge no. 1 and 6 as per his own findings. 13. Taking the first point ‘(a)’ I proceed to examine relevant provision of first statute of the University of Rohilkhand to which institution in question is affiliated to. 14. The first statute of the University is framed under U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and provisions contained therein deal with teachers and employees of the University, their service conditions and administrative powers of the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Dean of faculty, Dean of the Students Welfare, Head of Department, Laboratory, Proctor, the Court and also these powers in relation to the affiliated colleges that impart higher education to students. 15. Chapter II of the first statute starting with Statute No. 11.01 deals with affiliated colleges and Statute No. 11.05 provides for constitution of management of every college and its recognition and approval by the Vice Chancellor. 15. Chapter II of the first statute starting with Statute No. 11.01 deals with affiliated colleges and Statute No. 11.05 provides for constitution of management of every college and its recognition and approval by the Vice Chancellor. Chapter XIV-A deals with conditions of service of teachers of the University and provides vide Clause 14.02-A that teacher shall be maintaining absolute integrity and further provides vide 14.03-A that any breach of provision of the Code of Professional Ethics mentioned in Statute 14.04 and code of conduct as set out in Appendix-C shall be deemed to be misconduct and then 14.04-A provides for removal/dismissal/ termination of a University teacher on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Statute 14.07-A (a) provides for suspension of teacher during pendency and/or in contemplation of enquiry into charges against him/her on the grounds mentioned in Sub-Clause (a) to (e) of the Clause (1) of the Statute 14.04. The provisions as contained in Statute 14.02-A, 14.03-A, 14.04-A and 14.07-A are reproduced hereunder: “14.02-A - A teacher of the University shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall observe the Code of Conduct professional ethics mentioned in Statute 14.34 and the code of conduct as set out in Appendix ‘C, which shall form part of the agreement to be signed by the teacher at the time of appointment. (Section 49) (d) 14.03-A - A breach of any of the provisions of the Code of Professional ethics mentioned in statute 14.34 and code of conduct as set out in Appendix ‘C’ shall be deemed to be a misconduct within the meaning of Statute 14.04-A(1). (Section 49) (d) 14.04A - (1) A teacher of the University may be dismissed or removed or his services terminated on one or more of the following grounds: (a) willful neglect of duty. (b) misconduct. (c) breach of any of the terms of contract of service. (d) dishonesty connected with the University examinations. (e) scandalous conduct or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. (f) physical or mental unfitness. (g) incompetence. (h) abolition of the post. (b) misconduct. (c) breach of any of the terms of contract of service. (d) dishonesty connected with the University examinations. (e) scandalous conduct or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. (f) physical or mental unfitness. (g) incompetence. (h) abolition of the post. (2) Except as provided by Section 31(2), not less than three months notice (or where notice is given after the month of October, then three months’ notice or notice ending with the close of the session whichever is longer) shall be given on either side for terminating the contract of service or in lieu of such notice, salary for three months (or such longer period as aforesaid) shall be paid or refunded, as the case may be: Provided that where the University dismisses or removes or terminates the services of a teacher, under clause (1) or when the teacher terminates the contract for breach of any of its terms by the University, no such notice shall be necessary: Provided further that the parties will be free to waive the condition of notice, in whole or in part by mutual agreement. 14.07-A(1) The disciplinary committee referred to in statute 8.01 may recommend the suspension of a teacher during the pendency or in contemplation of an inquiry into charges against him/here, on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Statute 14.04. The order of suspension, if in operation on the expiry of four weeks unless the teacher has in the mean time been communicated the charges on which the inquiry was contemplated. (2) A teacher of University shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension: (a) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and is not forth with dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction. (b) In any other case, for the duration of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is for any criminal charge or otherwise.” 16. Thus above provisions are corresponding to the provisions as contained Section 49(d) and Section 21(1)(xvii) of the State Universities Act, 1973. 17. Similarly Chapter XV Part-1 of the first statute deals with the conditions of service of teachers of colleges. The provisions as contained in Statute 14.03(1), 14.04(1) and 14.07 are pari materia to the aforesaid quoted provisions. Thus above provisions are corresponding to the provisions as contained Section 49(d) and Section 21(1)(xvii) of the State Universities Act, 1973. 17. Similarly Chapter XV Part-1 of the first statute deals with the conditions of service of teachers of colleges. The provisions as contained in Statute 14.03(1), 14.04(1) and 14.07 are pari materia to the aforesaid quoted provisions. Accordingly, for ready reference and better appreciation, statute 14.03, 14.04 and 14.07 are reproduced hereunder: “14.02. Except in the case of an appointment under Section 31(3) in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to a teacher for a period not exceeding 10 months, teachers of an affiliated college shall be appointed on a written contract in form (1) or form (2) set out in Appendix ‘C’ as the case may be. (Section 49) (o) 14.03. (1) A teacher of the a College shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall observe the Code of Professional Ethics mentioned in statute 14.34-A and Code of Conduct as set out in Appendix C, which shall form part of the agreement to be signed by the teacher at the time of appointment. (2) A breach of any of the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics mentioned in statute 14.34-A and Code of Conduct as set out in Appendix C shall be deemed to be misconduct within the meaning of Statute 14.04 (1). (Section 49) (o) 14.04(1) teacher of an affiliated college (other than a Principal) may be dismissed or removed or his services terminated on one or more of the following grounds: (a) willful neglect of duty. (b) misconduct, including disobedience to the order of the Principal. (c) breach of any of the terms of contract of service. (d) dishonesty connected with the University or College examinations. (e) scandalous conduct or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. (f) physical or mental unfitness. (g) incompetence. (h) abolition of the post. (2) A principal of an affiliated college may be dismissed or removed, or his services terminated on grounds mentioned in clause (1) or on the ground of continuous mismanagement of the college. (e) scandalous conduct or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. (f) physical or mental unfitness. (g) incompetence. (h) abolition of the post. (2) A principal of an affiliated college may be dismissed or removed, or his services terminated on grounds mentioned in clause (1) or on the ground of continuous mismanagement of the college. (3) Except as provided by clause (4), not less than three months’ notice (or where notice is given after the month of October, then three months’ notice or notice ending with the close of the session whichever is longer) shall be given on either side for terminating the contract of service or in lieu of such notice, salary for three months (or longer period as aforesaid) shall be paid or refunded, as the case may be: Provided that where the Management dismisses or removes or terminates the services of a teacher, under clause (1) or clause (2) or when the teacher terminates the contract for breach of any of its terms by the Management, no such notice shall be necessary: Provided further that the parties will be free to waive the condition of notice, in whole or in part by mutual agreement. (4) In the case of any other teacher appointed in a temporary or officiating capacity services shall be terminable, by one month’s notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof, on either side. 14.07. The Management shall have the power to suspend a teacher during the pendency or in contemplation of an inquiry into charge against him, on the grounds mentioned in sub-class (a) to (e) of clauses (1) of Statute 14.04. In an emergency, (in the case of teacher other than principal) this power may be exercised by the principal in anticipation of the approval of the Management. The Principal shall immediately report such case to the Management. The order of suspension if passed in contemplation of an inquiry shall cease at the end of four weeks of its operation unless the teacher has in the mean time being communicated the charge of the charges on which the inquiry was contemplated.” (Emphasis added) 18. It is also important to refer to here Clause 14.16 of Chapter IV of first statute, which had been heavily relied upon by Dr. Garg in support of her arguments. It is also important to refer to here Clause 14.16 of Chapter IV of first statute, which had been heavily relied upon by Dr. Garg in support of her arguments. The relevant provisions as contained under Clause 14.16 is reproduced hereunder: “The provisions of clauses (2) to (4) of the Statute 14.07-A, 14.29-A to 14.34-A shall mutatis mutandis apply to every teacher of a college with the following modification, namely: (a) In clauses (2) to (4) of Statute 14.07-A, for the words “Vice Chancellor” and “Executive Council” the words “Management” and “Vice Chancellor” shall respectively be substituted. (b) In statute 14.29-A for the words “Vice Chancellor” and Head of Department” the words “Principal” and the “Senior-most Assistant Professor in the Department” shall respectively be substituted.” 19. The provisions as noted above do provide that provisions as contained under Statute 14.07-A, 14.29-A and 14.34-A shall mutatis mutandis apply to every teacher of the college with modifications that wherever Vice Chancellor and the Executive Council have been referred to will be Management and Vice Chancellor in respect of the colleges in so far as 14.07-A is concerned. 20. Sub-Clause (b) is not of the importance here for the purpose of arguments advanced. 21. Now 14.07-A talks of Disciplinary Committee referable to Statute 14.04-A (a) to (e). Obviously it is power of suspension vested with Vice Chancellor and power of approval or dismissal from service vests with Executive Council, and therefore, in reference to an affiliated college, it will obviously be Committee of Management and for approval the Vice Chancellor. The Statute 14.07 does authorize the management to suspend a teacher during pendency or in contemplation of the enquiry. The said statute as prescribed under Pat-1 of Chapter XIV is already reproduced above. 22. All these provisions as noted above and being discussed are referable to Section 49-(d) of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973 that provides for statutes and ordinances to govern the matters relating to University and its affiliated/associated colleges. Section 49-(d) is reproduced hereunder: “(d) the classification and recruitment (including minimum qualifications and experience) of Principals and other teachers of the University and of affiliated and associated colleges, the maintenance by them of their annual academic progress report, the rules of conduct to be observed by them and their emoluments and other conditions of service (including provisions relating to compulsory retirement).” 23. It is worth noticing here that Section 31(1) does confer the power of appointment upon Committee of Management qua teachers and employees of the affiliated/associated colleges. Section 31(1) for ready reference is reproduced hereunder: “31. Appointment of Teachers: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the teachers of the University and the teachers of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government [***) shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the affiliated or associated college, as the case may be, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter provided.” [The Selection Committee shall meet as often as necessary] 24. Chapter XIV Part-1 itself empowers the management to dismiss or remove the services of the teachers subject to approval of the Vice Chancellor. 14.06 and the same in its entirety is reproduced hereunder: “14.06 (1) No order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher on any ground mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Statute 14.04 (except in the case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude or of abolition of post) shall be passed unless a charge has been framed against the teacher and communicated to him with a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and he has been given adequate opportunity: (i) of submitting a written statement of his defense. (ii) of being heard in person, if he so desires. (iii) of calling and examining such witnesses in his defense as he may desire: Provided that the Management or the officer authorized by it on conduct the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call any witness. (2) The Management may, at any time, ordinary within two months from the date of the inquiry Officer's report pass a resolution dismissing or removing the teacher concerned from service, or terminating his services mentioning the grounds of such dismissal, removal or termination. (3) The resolution shall forthwith be communicated to the teacher concerned and also be reported to the Vice-Chancellor for approval and shall not be operative unless so approved by the Vice Chancellor. (4) The Management may, instead of dismissing, removing or terminating the service of the teacher, pass a resolution inflicting one or more of the following lesser punishments namely: (i) Reduction of pay for a specified period. (4) The Management may, instead of dismissing, removing or terminating the service of the teacher, pass a resolution inflicting one or more of the following lesser punishments namely: (i) Reduction of pay for a specified period. (ii) Stoppage of annual increments for specified period not exceeding three years. (iii) Deprivation of his pay not including subsistence allowance during a period of his suspension, if any. The resolution by the management inflicting such punishment shall be reported by the Vice-Chancellor and shall be operative on when and to the extent, approved by the Vice- Chancellor.” (Emphasis added) 25. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid provisions one can easily come to conclude that Committee of Management has been vested with power in the matters of imposition of punishment and deduction of pay of teachers subject to of course approval of Vice Chancellor as per Statute 14.06(3) and 14.06(4). 26. Thus there is no question to refer to any other provision so as to take out inference that disciplinary committee as is sought to be constituted under Statute 8.01, is the only disciplinary committee which is to be referred to for the purposes of holding disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of an affiliated college for taking disciplinary actions. The Disciplinary Committee that is referable to Statute 8.01 is in respect to the enquiry committee to be constituted for the purposes of teachers and employees of the University and not of its affiliated colleges. 27. It is necessary here to deal with argument raised by Dr. Sudha Garg that in view of the Section 30 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980, this new Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over and above contrary provisions contained under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the first statutes and ordinances framed thereunder as well. 28. I have examined aims and object of the Higher Education Service Commission Act and find that the Act had been enacted by U.P. legislature to constitute a Service Commission for selection of teachers to be appointed in the affiliated and/or recognized colleges of the University. So basic object is to hold selection for appointment of teachers. 28. I have examined aims and object of the Higher Education Service Commission Act and find that the Act had been enacted by U.P. legislature to constitute a Service Commission for selection of teachers to be appointed in the affiliated and/or recognized colleges of the University. So basic object is to hold selection for appointment of teachers. Section 12 of the Act that came into force on 22nd November, 1991 as substituted by amending Act No. 2 of 1992, provides that every appointment as teacher of any college shall be made by management but in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 12 of the Commission Act is reproduced hereunder: 12. Procedure for appointment of teachers: (1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. “Provided that a permanent teacher of affiliated or associated college, who has been appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and has completed (five years’) service as such and who wishes to be transferred to any other college, may be transferred in the manner prescribed by rules from one college to another, only when the respective management of the colleges concerned give their consents in writing.” (1-a) Notwithstanding any decree or order of a court, a teacher who has been appointed as such by transfer from one college to another in pursuance of the Government Orders No. 429 Shiksha Mantri/Sattar-6-98-15-95, dated August 17, 1998 or No. 393/Sattar-1- 9915(6)-99, dated October 28, 1999 shall be deemed to have been validly appointed as if the provisions of the principal Act as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Second Amendment) Act, 2004 were in force at all material times.” (2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed. Explanation - The expression “academic year” means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. Explanation - The expression “academic year” means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. (4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulations: Provided that the Commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under sub-section (3): Provided further that the candidates shall be required to indicate their order of preference for the various colleges, vacancies wherein have been advertised. 29. From above quoted provisions, it comes out that upon occurrence of vacancy, the Manager would be intimating the same to the Director of Higher Education, who in-turn would be notifying the same to the Commission for holding selection for appointment upon such vacancies. Sub-Section 4 provides for procedure to be prescribed under the regulations to be framed under the Commission Act. Section 13 of the Act provides for recommendation of Commission qua selected candidates and selection is by way of advertising the vacancy, holding written examination and interview and submitting the final select list to the Director. The relevant provision of Section 13 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act is reproduced hereunder: Recommendation of Commission 13: (1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub-section (3) of section 12, hold interview (with or without written examination) of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so for as practicable, twenty-five per cent more than the number of vacancies in that subject such names shall be arranged in order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination and interview if an examination is held. (2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission. (2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission. (3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order of preference if any indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to sub-section (4) Section 12, intimate to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub-section (1), for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub-section (2) of section 12. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2), and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. (5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions, where to abolition of any post of teacher in any college, services of the person substantively appointed to such post is terminated, the State Government may make suitable order for his appointment in suitable vacancy, whether notified under sub-section (3) of section 12 or not, in any other college, and thereupon the Director shall intimate to the management accordingly. (6) The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned.” 30. The Commission is the selecting body in so far as post of teacher of affiliated degree colleges of the University is concerned and then recommendation shall be made by the Commission to the Director. Powers have been vested with Director to forward the names to the management to issue appointment order. Section 14 of the Commission Act makes it mandatory for the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated by the Director and if such candidate does not turn up then management may ask for alternative name. Section 14 is reproduced hereunder: “Duty of Management 14: (1) The management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 13, issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated. Section 14 is reproduced hereunder: “Duty of Management 14: (1) The management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 13, issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated. (2) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf, or where such person is otherwise not available for appointment, the Director, shall on the request of the management intimate fresh name from the list sent by the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 13 in the manner prescribed.” 31. Director has been given administrative power to hold enquiry under Section 15 of the Commission Act in the event management does not offer appointment to such recommended candidate and so also the power to call for information in matters referred to under Section 11 for the purposes of selection and appointment of teachers. Commission may also inspect records. Section 15, 17 and 18 are reproduced hereunder: “Inquiry by Director 15: (1) Where any person is entitled to be appointed as a teacher in any college in accordance with sections 12 to 14, but he is not so appointed by the management within the time provided therefor, he may apply to the Director for a direction under sub-section (2). (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Director may hold an inquiry, and if he is satisfied that the management has failed to appoint the applicant as a teacher in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he may by order, require: (a) the management to appoint the applicant as a teacher forthwith, and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order. (b) the principal of the College concerned to take work from him as a teacher. (3) The amount of salary, if any due to such teacher shall, on a certificate issued by the Director, be recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. 16. [***] 17. (b) the principal of the College concerned to take work from him as a teacher. (3) The amount of salary, if any due to such teacher shall, on a certificate issued by the Director, be recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. 16. [***] 17. Power to call for information - The Commission may require the management of any college to submit such information or return regarding the matters referred to in section 11 as it thinks fit, and the management shall be bound to comply with the same. 18. Power to inspect records, register etc. - The Secretary or any other officer authorized by the Commission shall have access to every record, register or document in possession of the management and he may enter at any reasonable time, any premises where he believes such record, register or document to be, and may inspect and take copies of relevant records or documents.” 32. Besides the above, Commission Act also provides for exemption to minority institution vide Section 24 and then action against those not complying with direction of the Commission and powers of the Director vide Section 25 and then punishment also vide Section 26. Section 31 empowers the State Government to remove difficulties, Section 31-(b)(c) and (d) provide for regularization of certain appointments of teachers working on ad hoc basis and then Section 31-(e) provides for absorption of teacher, and further Section 32 also provides for State Government to frame rules to carry out purpose of the Act. Looking to all these sections referred to hereinabove as contained in Chapter III and V of the Commission Act, 1980 and so also entire scheme qua selection and appointment of teachers in affiliated and recognized colleges of the University, I find all these provisions to be clearly stipulating a precise manner and method in which selection has to take place as per regulations that are framed thereunder and it places the respective managements of the affiliated colleges and recognized colleges under an obligation to make appointment upon recommendation by the Commission. Thus in so far as selection of teachers of the affiliated and recognized college of the University is concerned, only this much power qua selection of teachers is now taken away from the Committee of Management and is vested with Higher Education Service Commission. 33. Now coming to Section 30 of the Commission Act that gives overriding effect. Thus in so far as selection of teachers of the affiliated and recognized college of the University is concerned, only this much power qua selection of teachers is now taken away from the Committee of Management and is vested with Higher Education Service Commission. 33. Now coming to Section 30 of the Commission Act that gives overriding effect. Section 30 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “30. Act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder.” 34. From bare reading of the provisions it becomes clear that overriding effect is only to the extent of provision of the University Act, 1973 and the Statutes and ordinances framed therein are found contrary to the Commission Act. 35. Since Commission Act only refers to selection of teachers against vacancies that are existing or may occur in future in affiliated and/or recognized degree college of the University, so to that extent only provisions contained under the State Universities Act or the first statute of the university or its ordinance stand superseded by Commission Act but for disciplinary proceedings and other incidental matters relating to condition of service etc. it would still be governed under the State Universities Act, 1973, the first statute of the concerned university and ordinance issued in that regard from time to time by university. 36. The provisions as have been noticed above and discussed clearly, provide only for selection and recommendation to be made to the Committee of Management for making appointment. Thus power still lies with management to make appointments by issuing appointment order. This is something like Public Service Commission that holds selection and makes recommendation but power to appoint by issuing appointment orders lies with the Government. The Commissioner cannot become a disciplinary authority in respect of such employees, merely for selecting candidates and recommending them for appointment except in cases where it has been vested with power of prior approval in the matter of punishment. 37. From the perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioner, it is clear that this appointment letter of the petitioner dated 18th January annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition no. 18909 of 2023 filed by Dr. 37. From the perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioner, it is clear that this appointment letter of the petitioner dated 18th January annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition no. 18909 of 2023 filed by Dr. Garg, had been issued by the Manager of Hindu College, Moradabad upon recommendation received from the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad vide letter dated 9.12.1999. This appointment, therefore, is completely in tune with the provisions as contained under Section 12 read with Section 13 and 14 of the Commission Act. 38. It is well settled law that in the absence of any rule an appointing authority would either be disciplinary authority or an authority above the appointing authority would be disciplinary authority but here the disciplinary authority is defined as Committee of Management in the statute of University. 39. In the case of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry vs. Controller and Auditor General, (1993) 1 SCC 419 , the Court has held that Article 311(1) provided that departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority but it is always open for the Union or the State Government to make any rule prescribing for such proceedings against delinquent employee and the enquiry officer should not be subordinate to the appointing authority. Vide paragraph 4, the Court has held thus: 4. Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a State “shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed”. Whether this guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that even the disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by the appointing authority? It is well known that departmental proceeding consists of several stages: the initiation of the proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against that delinquent officer and the final order which is passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. However, it is open to Union of India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority. Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holder of a civil post. But in absence of any such rule, this right or guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences, and the framers of the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of India or under the State Government. At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceeding should be initiated. In absence of a rule, any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding. 40. The above view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (1996) 4 SCC 727 . The Court in this case has held that it is not contemplated under Article 311 that appointing authority should definitely be disciplinary authority. Herein in the case in hand when the first statute of the University itself provided, as discussed above, that the Committee of Management would be disciplinary authority, there is no further requirement to follow principle of any statute or rules which is not applicable in respect of teachers of college governed under the First Statute of the University. 41. In view of above, therefore, the argument raised by Dr. 41. In view of above, therefore, the argument raised by Dr. Garg that since she was selected by the Commission and appointed under the letter of the Director of Higher Education, therefore, management would not be disciplinary authority is not acceptable. 42. Admittedly there is no dispute of the Committee of Management in the institution and, therefore, first point ‘(a)’ stands answered in favour of the Committee of Management and against Dr. Garg, the third respondent. 43. Now coming to point ‘(b)’ I proceed to examine the procedure adopted in holding departmental enquiry as it was claimed by the Committee of Management to have been duly adopted by the enquiry committee contrary to what was argued by Dr. Garg. It is not disputed between rival parties that after reply was submitted by Dr. Garg, three member committee headed by Dr. Kishan Swaroop Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate of Civil Court, Moradabad, proceeded to enquire into the charges. 44. Looking to the enquiry report, I find that it records that delinquent employee, namely, Dr. Garg was given 5 days notice on 5th February, 2019 to submit reply to which Dr. Garg had submitted reply. However later on Dr. Garg demanded time vide letter dated 18th March, 2019 and then she submitted reply on 10.4.2019. The enquiry report records further that Dr. Garg was informed about 26.4.2019 as the date fixed for appearance before the enquiry committee and that she did appear and on that date the Lab Assistant Mr. A Naqvi and two teachers Dr. Deepa Seth and Dr. Shalini Rai had filed their statements on affidavit and Associate Professor Dr. J.K. Pathak could not give his statement as he was out of station, and so there was request by him for 7 days’ time. It also records that one M.Sc. final Year student Shailesh Kumar S/o Moti Ram had also given his statement in writing against Dr. Garg and similarly two girl students of M.Sc. Final year, namely, Ms. Khatiza Mumtaz and Ms. Mumtaz Hussain also gave their joint statements on affidavit but no date is disclosed as to when these two students gave their affidavits. It is also recorded that another student Ahmad Shane Rahman of M.Sc. Final year gave statement against Dr. Garg but date of submission of statement is again not disclosed. Final year, namely, Ms. Khatiza Mumtaz and Ms. Mumtaz Hussain also gave their joint statements on affidavit but no date is disclosed as to when these two students gave their affidavits. It is also recorded that another student Ahmad Shane Rahman of M.Sc. Final year gave statement against Dr. Garg but date of submission of statement is again not disclosed. All these students gave their statements to the effect that they were not permitted to take admission in optional subject of their choice in Zoology. The enquiry report also records that one M.Sc. Part-2 student Divyanshi Tiwari gave her statement on affidavit that laboratory of M.Sc. Second year was closed and that she suffered great hardships and then students were required to give Rs. 2,000/- for submission of examination forms. One of the statements that has come in the enquiry report is that all these students had given their statements before Dr. Garg and were read out to Dr. Garg but Dr. Garg did not cross examine these students even after looking to their affidavits. The statements were also made by Dr. Deepa Sethi against petitioner regarding demand of Rs. 2000/- and that Dr. Garg had put lock on the laboratory. The enquiry report also records that Dr. Shalini Rai also gave her statement against Dr. Garg for spoiling atmosphere in the department by putting lock on the door of room of Professor J.K. Pathak and Dr. Deepa Sethi respectively. The enquiry report further records that Dr. Sudha Garg submitted supplementary statement on 24.4.2019 and then second supplementary statement on 25.4.2019 and Dr. J.K. Pathak had submitted his written statement on 21.5.2019 in which he also stated that because of Dr. Garg a very tens environment was prevailing in the department. He had given statement that on 25th September, 2019 administrative work was taken from Dr. Garg. The enquiry report also records that Dr. Sudha Garg took time to submit her evidence, and therefore, she was given time to appear on 1.6.2019. The enquiry report also records that documents were given by eight students of the Zoology, department to the Committee of Management in the form of complaints and two complaints were received by registered post, which were all supplied to the enquiry committee for consideration. It records that on 1.6.2019 Dr. The enquiry report also records that documents were given by eight students of the Zoology, department to the Committee of Management in the form of complaints and two complaints were received by registered post, which were all supplied to the enquiry committee for consideration. It records that on 1.6.2019 Dr. Sudha Garg demanded further time to submit reply and so 22nd July, 2019 was fixed and 22nd July, 2019 she appeared and submitted her notary affidavit, a compact disc and certain other documents. The enquiry report thereafter records that Dr. Garg had submitted documents of her skill and merits and had stated that Dr. K.C. Gupta being her relative was enimical to her and that was why Dr. Gupta was not cooperating with department. The enquiry report thereafter discusses also her statement of regret regarding change in the time table and that she had pasted notice in the interest of students but Dr. Garg did not, as per report, submit any explanation as to why she did not permit students to opt optional subject whereas they claimed that she forced 2nd year students to take admission in a subject as per her dictates. This enquiry report finally holds Dr. Garg to be guilty of charges. 45. After discussing the entire enquiry report, I find four dates to be relevant, i.e. 26.4.2019, 21.5.2019 and 2nd July, 2019. On 26.4.2019, it is claimed that all the departmental witnesses gave their statements on their affidavits though regarding teachers only the date shown to be 26.4.2019. 21.5.2019 is the date when Dr. Pathak gave statement and then on 2nd July, 2019, Dr. Garg submitted further explanation, her evidence and a compact disc etc. 46. The argument advanced by Dr. Garg has been that she was not given any copy of the statements submitted before enquiry report whereas findings in the enquiry report are to the effect that two teachers gave their statement on 26.4.2019 and students had appeared before enquiry committee and gave their statements in presence of Dr. Garg and Dr. Garg refused to cross examine them. This argument of no opportunity to meet various affidavits and cross examine witnesses is contrary to what is recorded in the enquiry report, and therefore, it becomes necessary now to examine this aspect and go through the documents to that count brought on record. Garg and Dr. Garg refused to cross examine them. This argument of no opportunity to meet various affidavits and cross examine witnesses is contrary to what is recorded in the enquiry report, and therefore, it becomes necessary now to examine this aspect and go through the documents to that count brought on record. There is one such document appended to the writ petition filed by Dr. Garg and which formed part of her reply submitted to the Vice Chancellor. This is of 21st May, 2019 which records that Committee was fixing a date on the request of Dr. Garg for furnishing her evidence but this also records that Dr. Garg pleaded before the enquiry committee that she was not given any opportunity to cross examine witnesses and that she had demanded copies of the statements and evidence collected by the enquiry committee, and therefore, all these documents should be supplied to her. Relevant document dated 21st May, 2019 which appears to be order-sheet of the enquiry report, is reproduced hereunder: ^^vkt fnukad 21-05-2019 dks tkap desVh ds }kjk MkWŒ lq/kk xxZ ds fuyEcu ds Ádj.k esa egkfo|ky; ds Ákax.k esa vkdj MkWŒ tsŒdsŒ ikBd ds fyf[kr C;ku fy;s x;s ftl ij MkWŒ lq/kk xxZ ds }kjk ftjg ls bUdkj fd;kA MkW lq/kk xxZ ls lEcfU/kr lHkh i=kpkj@Ái= Ákpk;Z ds }kjk tkap desVh dks fn;s x;sA MkWŒ lq/kk xxZ ds }kjk viuk lk{; nsus gsrq le; ekaxk mudh lgefr ls tkap desVh ds }kjk fnukad 01-06-2019 ¼'kfuokj½ dks nksigj 12%00 cts dh vxyh rkjh[k fu;r dh tk jgh gSA** gLrk{kj viBuh; gLrk{kj viBuh; gLrk{kj viBuh; ¼fd'ku Lo:i HkVukxj½ ¼MkWŒ ohŒdsŒ R;kxh½ ¼fouhr dqekj xkSM+½ v/;{k lnL; lnL; Sir, 1. I never provided any opportunity of cross-examination of any of the witnesses who have submitted their statements and evidence till date. 2. I have the right to have true copies of all the statements/evidences collected so far by the Inquiry Committee in this matter. 3. I again submit to provide me the true copy of all collected statements/ evidences so that can cross-examine all the things & or submit my statement further in the matter. I highly object this unfair proceedings of the Inquiry Committee.” Applicant Sudha Garg Signature 21.05.2019 47. 3. I again submit to provide me the true copy of all collected statements/ evidences so that can cross-examine all the things & or submit my statement further in the matter. I highly object this unfair proceedings of the Inquiry Committee.” Applicant Sudha Garg Signature 21.05.2019 47. The enquiry report is absolutely silent about this request letter made by the petitioner on 21st May, 2019 which is obviously subsequent to the recording of the statements of various students, as claimed, on 26.4.2019. It becomes, therefore, difficult to justify findings in the enquiry report that all the statements were read out to Dr. Garg and yet she refused to cross examine the witnesses. Had it been a correct fact that Dr. Garg was apprised with statements or the statements were made before her then all that the enquiry committee was required to record was that this request demanding various affidavits and documents and 21st May, 2019 was only with an intention to delay the enquiry. The order-sheet dated 21st May, 2019 only refers to the fact that Dr. Garg refused to even examine Dr. J.K. Pathak and no other witness has been named. Regarding 2nd July, 2019 as discussed in the enquiry report order-sheet is absolutely silent as to any opportunity being afforded to the petitioner to cross examine teachers and the students and Dr. J.K. Pathak after they submitted reply in between 21st May, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019. It is therefore, clearly established that in the matter of oral enquiry held by the enquiry committee, petitioner though might have been given an opportunity to appear but she was never supplied with requisite documents that formed material evidence against her, nor was afforded any opportunity to cross- examine such witnesses. The finding part of the enquiry report to the contrary is based upon no evidence more especially in the face of there being no discussion as to order-sheet dated 21st May, 2019 that reflected that all those affidavits and documents furnished by teachers and students were required by the petitioner in order to meet them. 48. Yet another aspect also worth noticing is that while Dr. Garg has questioned the findings in the enquiry report besides procedural part, her reply and documentary evidence placed and led before enquiry report were also not accorded due consideration. I find that in the entire enquiry report the documents furnished by Dr. 48. Yet another aspect also worth noticing is that while Dr. Garg has questioned the findings in the enquiry report besides procedural part, her reply and documentary evidence placed and led before enquiry report were also not accorded due consideration. I find that in the entire enquiry report the documents furnished by Dr. Garg have not been discussed and the compact disc etc. has also not been discussed. The enquiry committee does refer to 27 documents supplied by petitioner but in the discussion part on internal page 11 of the enquiry report, there is no single reference as to what those 27 documents were all about. 49. The entire enquiry report only discusses affidavits filed by three teachers and students against petitioner but those evidence and documents in the absence of there being any cross examination by the petitioner and denial of opportunity for rebuttal, could not have been relied upon [Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182 ]. 50. On the finding part of the enquiry report, I find, there are about eight charges levelled against Dr. Garg and what is interesting to notice is that basic charge was in respect of closing admission in the two optional subjects of Cytology and Entomology of the Zoology subject and that practical examinations were not held as per schedule. While enquiry report discusses the statement of students that they were forced not to take admission in these two optional subjects but as to the charge that practical examination of first and second year zoology students was unnecessarily delayed and were deferred against the schedule of the University, no evidence has been discussed. All the testimonies were of students of M.Sc. third year and not M.Sc. 1st and 2nd year in whose respect the charge was that their practical examination was delayed. Dr. Garg’s reply to this above charge was that students were duly informed by affixing notice on 30th January, 2019 and then on 31st January, 2019 that practical will be held between 11th February, 2019 and 22nd February, 2019 and that practicals were so held but this reply has not been at all referred to. 51. Point No. 7(2) of the reply stated that Dr. 51. Point No. 7(2) of the reply stated that Dr. Garg was doing every possible effort to comply with instructions of the University and that practicals were held and examiners were appointed and yet the entire enquiry report is absolutely silent about this reply. This reply was to the charge no. 6. 52. The other charges were regarding taking of Rs. 2,000/- etc. vide charge no. 3 but reply by Dr. Garg vide Point No. 3 to the above charge has also not been discussed except allegation of teachers whose testimonies/statements were not supplied to the petitioner, and they were also not permitted to be cross examined. Cahrge Nos. 4 and 5 were not serious charges and except for the affidavit of J.K.Pathak whose affidavit was not supplied to the petitioner there was no further evidence. As far as charge nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, I do not find there to be any discussion except for the statement of certain teachers that because of the conduct of the Dr. Garg the atmosphere got spoilt and was not conducive to the academic activities on campus. 53. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit in reply to Para 8 to the writ petition no. 20031 of 2023, Dr. Garg has taken a plea that entire enquiry committee held enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice without recording relevant facts and also not worth in the name of sustained charge. In reply to these averments, vide paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner’s Committee of Management, only plain and simple denial has been made with further assertion that Committee of Management of the institution after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner against enquiry report passed the order considering the gravity of the charges. 54. Rule of discretion is to be rational and should not be arbitrary vague and fanciful. In other words, it should be legal and regular and must be based upon twin sound principles of justice and fair play. A fair hearing means giving a reasonable opportunity to an individual and in service jurisprudence to an employee who is sought to be proceeded against on the ground misconduct, indiscipline etc. The entire chain of events in the matter of departmental enquiry should not smack of any personal clash or adaptation of a method unknown to law in the hottest haste. The entire chain of events in the matter of departmental enquiry should not smack of any personal clash or adaptation of a method unknown to law in the hottest haste. Besides this, the procedure adopted should not give any room to any kind of bias whatsoever [Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd (supra)]. 55. A division bench of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 (All) relying upon earlier judment of division bench in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and Others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 held that if no oral enquiry is held it amounts to denial of compliance of principles of natural justice to the prejudice of the delinquent employee. Vide paragraph 12, 13 and 14, the Court held thus: 12. An oral inquiry would be necessary even if the delinquent employee has a failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet. In State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if the employee has failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet, it would not absolve the Inquiry Officer from proceeding with the oral inquiry and submit report as to whether charge is proved or not. After recording of evidence, he will find out whether the charge is proved or not and submit report to the disciplinary authority. 13. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that the delinquent employee has a right to defend himself at different stages. When the charge-sheet is served upon him, he has a right to submit his reply and in case he does not submit reply, that itself would not amount to admission of guilt or that the charge stand proved. If the allegations are serious and may result in major penalty, the disciplinary authority may appoint Inquiry Officer. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. During the course of oral inquiry, the delinquent employee has right to participate at every stage and date and if there is any failure in participation on one or more occasions, the Inquiry Officer cannot deny him participation from the subsequent stage. The delinquent employee can participate at subsequent other stage also. The Inquiry Officer, after completion of oral inquiry, will submit its report after discussing the entire material and if any charge is proved, the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and he would again have a right to submit reply to the inquiry report. 14. Non holding of oral inquiry, therefore, is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment. 56. I may observe at this stage that of course, there are limitations to exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of disciplinary proceedings where after enquiry, disciplinary authority has proceeded to impose punishment and the scope further gets narrowed down when it comes to test action of the authority as to nature of particular punishment as has been discussed and held in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Subrata Nath, the Court in that case held that “Once the gravity of the misdemeanour is established and the inquiry conducted is found to be consistent with the prescribed Rules and reasonable opportunity contemplated under the rules, has been afforded to the delinquent employee, then the punishment imposed is not open to judicial review by the Court. As long as there was some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority did, such an order becomes unassailable and the High Court ought to forebear from interfering. As long as there was some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority did, such an order becomes unassailable and the High Court ought to forebear from interfering. And “it is equally true that where there is bona fide loss of confidence of employer in his or her employee then order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity.” [Vide Air India Corporation vs. V.A. Rebellow, Francis Klein and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Workmen and BHEL vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, followed in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 ] 57. But question remains to be answered as in the case in hand, as to whether there was an enquiry conducted in consonance with the rules of procedure so as to close the doors of Court to interfere with final award of punishment and further the finding of bona fide loss of confidence and trust is vitiated for lack of transparency and fairness in procedure adopted to conduct enquiry. The case in hand is one such case where from the enquiry report it is apparent on the face of record that enquiry committee just referred to two basic events that oral evidence was accepted in presence of Dr. Garg and yet she refused to cross examine and then she also supplied written submissions, a large number of documents and a compact disc, but as I have discussed above, there is no reference to the order-sheet dated 1.6.2019, inasmuch as there is no discussion on any documents furnished by her including the compact disc. This shows that the enquiry committee did not consider it appropriate to give Dr. Garg a reasonable opportunity by supplying documents required by her and to permit her to cross examine the departmental witnesses. 58. This in my considered view, therefore, is not a fair procedure and, thus, it becomes a case ‘singularly singular’, an expression used by the Supreme Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra) case to interfere with. It is well said that each case is to be tested on its own facts and looking to the facts of the case in hand, I come to conclude that there is definite lack of transparency in terms of reasonable opportunity to delinquent employee to defend her case. It is well said that each case is to be tested on its own facts and looking to the facts of the case in hand, I come to conclude that there is definite lack of transparency in terms of reasonable opportunity to delinquent employee to defend her case. There are departmental evidence utilized by the enquiry committee in bringing home the charges but opportunity of rebuttal by supplying those documents to the petitioner and opportunity of cross examination of the departmental witnesses were not provided inasmuch as the documentary and other material evidence submitted by petitioner in rebuttal, were not discussed at all. 59. In the resolution passed by the Committee of Management to terminate petitioner, I find only findings returned by enquiry committee to have been relied upon and so also in the entire order passed by the Manager of the college. Any subsequent opportunity by way of second show cause notice to delinquent employee would not fill up inherent lacunae on the part of the enquiry committee in conducting the enquiry. Thus, merely because Dr. Garg was given opportunity by way of second show cause notice would not make deficient enquiry good. Thus second point ‘(b)’ stands answered in favour of Dr. Garg and against the Committee of Management to effect that entire enquiry conducted by enquiry committee was a farce. 60. Coming to the third point, as Committee of Management has assailed the order of the Vice Chancellor on the ground that once he himself sustained the charge nos. 1 and 6, he could not have returned a finding that Dr. Garg was not guilty of the charges and therefore, the order deserves to be set aside, I find substance in this argument. 61. Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Vice Chancellor sought to defend the order on the ground that statute of University and the 1973 Act do permit Vice Chancellor to examine entire enquiry report while matter of approval was placed before him. He submitted that as far as point nos. 61. Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Vice Chancellor sought to defend the order on the ground that statute of University and the 1973 Act do permit Vice Chancellor to examine entire enquiry report while matter of approval was placed before him. He submitted that as far as point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that has been referred to in the penultimate paragraph of the order of the Vice Chancellor, the same was referable to those 5 points that he had formulated to examine and test the correctness of the procedure adopted in holding enquiry and also as to correctness of the findings returned in the enquiry report so as to approve the order of dismissal or not. He submits approving authority has traces of appellate authority and therefore, approving authority was well within its right to examine the matter, might not as enquiry officer but as superintending and revising authority. He has referred to Statute No. 14.06(3) and 2.02 of the first statute of the University read with Section 13(1) and Section 49 and thus he submitted that Vice Chancellor can require any document. 62. Dr. Garg has assailed the finding part as far as 1st and 6th charges are concerned and submitted that she did submit reply to the entire enquiry report to the Vice Chancellor, by way of reply to the notice, after the matter was remitted in the first round of litigation to Vice Chancellor but he failed to look into all those replies in their correct perspective. 63. I have examined the order of the Vice Chancellor and find that Vice Chancellor has though framed virtually four points to be examined by him but he did deal with finding part as far as charge nos. 1 and 6 are concerned, independently and sustained those charges. 64. In my considered view if the Vice Chancellor was of the view that 1st and 6th charges were sustainable then he was certainly not justified in holding that Dr. Sudha Garg was not guilty of any of the charges. However, it appears that Vice Chancellor since found there to be non compliance of natural justice, therefore, he proceeded to pass this kind of order reinstating the petitioner. Sudha Garg was not guilty of any of the charges. However, it appears that Vice Chancellor since found there to be non compliance of natural justice, therefore, he proceeded to pass this kind of order reinstating the petitioner. In my considered view if there has been violation of principles of natural justice, then best course would have been to remit the matter to the authority concerned to re-hear the matter and pass order afresh in accordance with law. 65. In the instance case, since I have already held point no. ‘b’ in favour of Dr. Garg, in my considered view, the matter is required to be re-investigated by Committee of Management by setting up the enquiry committee as enquiry is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. 66. In the case of Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 the Court has held that if the Court for want of compliance of any mandatory procedural aspects finds that matter needs reconsideration, then the Court or Tribunal should remit the matter to that stage only. It has also been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Committee of Management, Muslim Inter College and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 (1) ADJ 308 (DB). 67. In view of above, while I am quashing the order of Vice Chancellor dated 4.10.2022 reinstating the petitioner, I am also quashing the enquiry report dated 30th July, 2019 with following further directions: (i) Petitioner shall be restored to the status of the suspended teacher as she had been at the time of initiation of departmental enquiry and shall be paid subsistence allowance regularly including arrears, if any, due. (ii) The Committee of Management shall constitute enquiry committee afresh within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. However, this time, it will endeavour, as far as possible, to include teachers of the college and of the University, if possible, who are senior to Dr. Garg also as members of enquiry committee. (ii) The Committee of Management shall constitute enquiry committee afresh within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. However, this time, it will endeavour, as far as possible, to include teachers of the college and of the University, if possible, who are senior to Dr. Garg also as members of enquiry committee. (iii) The Committee of Management shall immediately supply all the documents that were available with earlier enquiry committee including affidavits of teachers and students to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order and petitioner shall within two weeks thereafter submit her additional reply with reference to the documents so supplied. (iv) The enquiry committee shall fix a date and notify all those witnesses who were examined by the enquiry committee earlier to appear before it fixing a date, time and place and shall give opportunity to Dr. Garg to cross examine each of the witnesses but not more than 2 or 3 dates shall be fixed for this purpose. (v) After cross-examination procedure is completed, the enquiry committee shall submit report afresh to the Committee of Management within three months of its constitution who shall then proceed in accordance with and as per procedure prescribed meeting the requirements of second show cause notice, if enquiry committee held her guilty of charges, in the light of the judgment in Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). Final decision shall be taken by Committee of Management within next one month’s time of submission of enquiry report. 68. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 4.10.2023 passed by respondent Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly as well as resolution of the Committee of Management dated 27.08.2019 are quashed. 69. With these aforesaid observations and directions, these two writ petitions stand disposed of. 70. Cost made easy.