ORDER : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Chancellor of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Agriculture University, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner, who was Vice Chancellor of Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and ad hoc Vice Chancellor for the Agriculture University, Jodhpur, was removed. 2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the removal order on the ground that the enquiry report, which was formed the basis, was not an enquiry report as contemplated under Section 19 -A of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University Bikaner Act , 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987”) and Section 25 -A of the Agriculture University Jodhpur Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”). 3. The main challenge to the impugned order is that the enquiry report, which formed the basis for the removal of the petitioner from the posts of Vice Chancellor and ad-hoc Vice Chancellor of both universities, was not furnished to the petitioner. Furthermore, no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was provided to him. Consequently, he was denied the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to make a representation against the findings of the enquiry and the proposed action based on that report. 4. Another ground was that the entire procedure adopted by the Chancellor in passing the impugned order was contrary to the requirements of the statute, specifically Section 19 -A of the Act of 1987 and Section 25 -A of the Act of 2013. The powers invoked to appoint the Enquiry Committee were under Section 9 of both Acts. However, the Committee constituted under this provision was not related to the enquiry contemplated under -A of the Act of 1987 Act and -A of the Act 2013. 5. The other ground urged in the writ petition is with regard to manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Committee was constituted only to investigate alleged complaints. However, no specific charge was framed against the petitioner before initiating the enquiry under Sections 19 -A of the Act 1987 and 25-A of the Act of 2013 Act. 5. The other ground urged in the writ petition is with regard to manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Committee was constituted only to investigate alleged complaints. However, no specific charge was framed against the petitioner before initiating the enquiry under Sections 19 -A of the Act 1987 and 25-A of the Act of 2013 Act. Furthermore, the nature of the enquiry conducted by the Committee, which was constituted under Section 9 of both enactments, related only to a different purpose and was not for the purpose contemplated under -A or 25-A of the respective Acts. Therefore, the entire process undertook which was taken foundation for passing the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. The case of the respondents are that there are various allegations concerning willful omissions, abuse of power, and the continuation of the petitioner in the post of Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. In the enquiry conducted by the duly constituted Committee, the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity and in fact, he submitted an elaborate reply. After considering the reply, the Committee submitted its enquiry report, based on which the removal action was taken. Therefore, the Chancellor’s action cannot be said to violative of the statutory provisions that empower him to exercise such authority. 7. This Court has only heard arguments on the interim stay application. The grant of any interim order is basing on the establishment of prima facie case and other requirement for grant of interim orders. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the constitution of an Enquiry Committee under Section 9 of the Act of 1987 and under Sections 19 -A/25-A of the respective Acts are entirely different, and one report cannot serve as basis to exercise powers under the other statutory provisions. Section 9 is intended solely to authorize inspection orders relating to the University’s buildings, research stations, laboratories, centers, libraries, museums, workshops, equipment, and also institutions, colleges, or hostels administered, controlled, or maintained by the University. Apart from such inspections, the Chancellor has the power to make enquiries into the teaching or other work conducted by or under the auspices of the University, or any matter connected with the administration of the University’s finances. Additionally, Section 9 (2. Apart from such inspections, the Chancellor has the power to make enquiries into the teaching or other work conducted by or under the auspices of the University, or any matter connected with the administration of the University’s finances. Additionally, Section 9 (2. of the 1987 Act requires the Chancellor to issue notice to the University before ordering any inspection or enquiry to facilitate the University to appoint a person as its representative to be present and heard during an inspection or enquiry. The Chancellor is required to furnish the enquiry report to the University and obtain its comments. Thereafter, the Chancellor may make an advisory recommendation to the University on the action to be taken within a fixed time. Whereas, the powers under -A and 25-A of respective Acts are entirely different. These provisions enable the Chancellor to initiate proceedings for removal when, in the Chancellor’s opinion, the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, abuses his powers, and where the continuation of such Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. Upon such an opinion, the University is required to conduct an enquiry as it deems proper and thereafter remove the Vice Chancellor. However, no order shall be made by the Chancellor unless the Vice Chancellor is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The report of the Committee constituted under Section 9 is only to give advice to the University on the issues covered therein, which relate to the University as an institution. Whereas, the constitution of any Committee for enquiry under -A or 25-A of the respective Acts is individual-centric, focusing on the Vice Chancellor rather than the University. The power to initiate an enquiry under -A or 25-A must be exercised after forming a prima facie opinion regarding willful omissions, abuses, or refusal to comply with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the entire process adopted by the respondents, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has made a procedure vitiated and action thereon is unsustainable. 9. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that an enquiry under Section 19 -A/25-A of the respective Acts was conducted, at least a proper procedure should have been followed to prove the allegations. They cannot submit a report based solely on the reply received. 9. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that an enquiry under Section 19 -A/25-A of the respective Acts was conducted, at least a proper procedure should have been followed to prove the allegations. They cannot submit a report based solely on the reply received. Independent evidence must be recorded before submitting the report, and the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The report submitted was based only on their own appreciation of the reply, without providing the petitioner a proper chance to present his case during the enquiry. Furthermore, such an enquiry report was not furnished, and no show-cause notice was issued for the proposed action. Consequently, the petitioner has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed action. Therefore, the order under challenge prima facie could not have been passed and the operation of the same may be stayed. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State Government as well as the other respondents have unanimously submitted that the Enquiry Committee was duly constituted by the Government under the powers vested in it by Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1987. The Committee comprises civil servants and other esteemed individuals who conducted the enquiry based on the directions of the Chancellor. The Enquiry Committee also conducted its proceedings fairly, as evidenced by the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, which addressed each of the allegations. The findings of the enquiry clearly demonstrate that the petitioner engaged in financial irregularities, in addition to abusing his power. The continuation of a person like the petitioner would be detrimental to the interests of the University. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the interim stay application. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully perused the material available on record. 12. The facts in the present case indisputably proved that the petitioner was appointed as as a Vice Chancellor for the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner by proceedings dated 29.09.2022 and he took charge on 05.12.2022. While working as a regular Vice Chancellor for the Agriculture University of Bikaner, the petitioner was also given additional charge of Vice Chancellor of Agriculture University of Jodhpur by proceedings dated 21.06.2024 and he took additional charge on 22.06.2024. While working as a regular Vice Chancellor for the Agriculture University of Bikaner, the petitioner was also given additional charge of Vice Chancellor of Agriculture University of Jodhpur by proceedings dated 21.06.2024 and he took additional charge on 22.06.2024. It is also an undisputed fact that the appointment of the Committee to conduct the enquiry reflects the Chancellor’s exercise of powers under Section 9 of both Acts, and the impugned orders were passed by exercising powers under Sections 19 -A and 25-A of the Acts of 1987 and 2013, respectively. The bone contention of both the counsels is with regard to Sections 9 , 19-A/25-A of the Acts, therefore, it is apt to refer to said provisions, which reads as under:- “ 9. Power to order inspection or enquiry -(1) The Chancellor shall have power to order an inspection, by such person as he may appoint, of the University and its buildings, research stations, laboratories, centres, libraries, museums, workshops and equipments and also of any institution, college or hostel administered, controlled or maintained by the University. An inspection or enquiry may also be made, as directed by the Chancellor, into the teaching or other work conducted by or under the auspices of the University or any matter connected with the administration or the finances of the University. (2) The Chancellor shall, before ordering an inspection or enquiry, give a notice to the University in this behalf. The University may appoint a person as its representative for being present and be heard at the inspection or enquiry. (3) The Chancellor may communicate to the University his views on the result of the inspection or enquiry and may, after obtaining the comments of the University, advise the University on the action to be taken within a period fixed by him. (4) The University shall, within the period so fixed, send a report to the Chancellor about the action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to the advice given by the Chancellor under sub-section (3). (5) The Chancellor may, where action is not taken by the University in accordance with the advice given by him under sub-section (3), issue directions, as he may deem fit, and the University shall be bound to comply with such directions. (5) The Chancellor may, where action is not taken by the University in accordance with the advice given by him under sub-section (3), issue directions, as he may deem fit, and the University shall be bound to comply with such directions. (6) Where the Chancellor is of the opinion that the affairs of the University are not being conducted in furtherance of its objects or in accordance with the provision of this Act so as to maintain the standards of teaching, examination, research or extension programme, he may call upon it to send comments or explanation in this behalf. In case the University fails to send, or sends unsatisfactory, comments or explanation, the Chancellor may issue such instructions as may appear to be necessary or desirable. (7) The University shall furnish such information relating to its administration as the Chancellor may require.” xxx xxx xxx “ 19-A. Removal of Vice-Chancellor .-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if at any time, on the report of the State Government or otherwise, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him or if otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor: Provided that the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, at any time before making such order, place the Vice-Chancellor under suspension, pending enquiry: Provided further that no order shall be made by the Chancellor unless the Vice-Chancellor has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (2) During the pendency or in contemplation, of any inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, order that till further order- (a) such Vice-Chancellor shall refrain from performing the functions of the office of Vice-Chancellor, but shall continue to get the emoluments to which he was otherwise entitled: (b) the functions of the office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be performed by the person specified in the order.” xxx xxx xxx “25-A Removal of Vice Chancellor.- Nothwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if at any time, on the report of the State Government or otherwise, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice- Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him or if otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor. Provided that the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, at any time before making such order, place the Vice-Chancellor under suspension, pending enquiry: Provided further that no order shall be made by the Chancellor unless the Vice-Chancellor has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (2) During the pendency or in contemplation, of any inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, order that till further order- (a) such Vice-Chancellor shall refrain from performing the functions of the office of Vice-Chancellor, but shall continue to get the emoluments to which he was otherwise entitled: (b) the functions of the office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be performed by the person specified in order.” 12.1. The enquiries contemplated under Section 9 and Sections 19 -A/25-A of the Acts are governing different fields. The enquiry under Section 9 is required to be conducted only with reference to the inspection of the University and its buildings, research stations, laboratories, and any institution, college, or hostel administered, controlled, or maintained by the University. Such inspection or enquiry may also be conducted, as directed by the Chancellor, into the teaching or other work carried out by or under the University, or into any matter relating to the administration or finances of the University. Such inspection or enquiry may also be conducted, as directed by the Chancellor, into the teaching or other work carried out by or under the University, or into any matter relating to the administration or finances of the University. 12.2. From a reading of Sub-sections 2 to 7 of Section 9 of the Act of 1987, it is clear that the entire inspection or enquiry under Section 9 is university-centric and not individual-centric. Such an enquiry is intended to provide advice to the University on actions to be taken based on the report, after inviting comments from the University. This provision is entirely distinct from the powers under Sections 19 -A and 25-A of the Acts. -A(10) of the Act of 1987 and 25-A(1) of the Act of 2013 empower the Chancellor to order an enquiry, as deemed proper, if the Chancellor opines that the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the relevant Acts, abuses his powers, or if the Chancellor considers that the continuation of the Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. The proviso to these sections clearly states that no removal order shall be passed by the Chancellor unless the Vice Chancellor has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. This procedure is almost identical to disciplinary proceedings, which must be conducted by an enquiry officer. Prima facie, considering the above provisions and the facts at hand, the constitution of the Enquiry Committee under Section 9 , as admittedly pleaded by the respondents before this Court, indicates that the Committee was constituted solely for the purposes prescribed under Section 9 of the Act of 1987, which is university-centric. Whereas an Enquiry Committee proposed under -A/25-A of the Acts relates to an individual-centric enquiry, specifically for the purpose of removal, which can only be initiated after an appropriate enquiry has been conducted and the enquiry report obtained. There must be a opinion of the Chancellor that the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, abuses his power, or that the continuation of the Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. Then only the Chancellor can appoint an Enquiry Committee to conduct enquiry for the contemplated action of removal. 13. Then only the Chancellor can appoint an Enquiry Committee to conduct enquiry for the contemplated action of removal. 13. Unfortunately, in the present case, the enquiry that was done gave a projection that it was conducted under Section 9 and not under Section 19 -A/25-A. This is because, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19 -A and 25-A of both Acts, before initiating any proceedings for removal or obtaining an enquiry report, the Chancellor must form an opinion that the Vice Chancellor has willfully omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the Act, abused his power, or that the continuation of the Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. In the present case, no such opinion was formed regarding the alleged violations prior to the constitution of the enquiry, as required under -A and 25-A. The admitted facts further demonstrate that the Enquiry Committee constituted under Section 9 appears to be a preliminary enquiry rather than a detailed inquiry. A detailed enquiry can only be conducted after specific charges relating to the alleged violations have been communicated and a fair opportunity of hearing is provided. The enquiry report was based solely on a reply, and no further steps were taken. 14. Prima facie, looking at the entire proceedings, there is no show cause at all for the proposed removal action. The appointment of the Committee itself indicates that it was not in contemplation of an enquiry as is provided under Sections 19 -A or 25-A of the Acts but gave an impression of an enquiry under Section 9 , which is not individual-centric. What is more unfortunate in the present case is that the enquiry report, which formed the foundation for the action, was not furnished before initiating the removal process. Furthermore, even before receiving the enquiry report, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the proposed action. In the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim orders in his favour. Therefore, this Court is inclined to stay the proceedings of removal. 15. In the result, the effect and operation of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Chancellor of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Agriculture University, Jodhpur are stayed till final disposal of the writ petition. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to stay the proceedings of removal. 15. In the result, the effect and operation of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Chancellor of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Agriculture University, Jodhpur are stayed till final disposal of the writ petition. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, the petitioner is restrained from discharging any function of Vice Chancellor except drawing the emoluments. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly.