ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner Dr. Arjun Singh aggrieved from order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Vice-Chancellor of Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural University, Jobner, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as “Univesity”), and for ready reference, dismissal order dated 14.07.2025 is reproduced as under: 2. Instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer: “(I) Pass any writ, order or direction whereby the termination order dated 14.07.2025 be quashed and set aside and the proceedings undertaken by the respondents be declared illegal and illicit. (ii) Pass any writ, order or direction whereby the respondent No.1 may be directed to reinstate the writ petitioners and the respondents also, be directed to allow the writ petitioner to continue on the post and status which he was holding.” 3. The material on record also indicated that on earlier occasion, a S.B. Civil writ petition No.9383/2025 was filed by the petitioner to challenge his suspension but same was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.06.2025. 4. After service upon respondents of this writ petition, respondent No.1 and 2 have filed their reply and thereafter petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply. 5. Considering the submissions of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, the matter is considered for final disposal at this stage, therefore we are deciding this writ petition finally on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee of University, and he has been appointed on 05.05.1996 pursuant to resolution of the Board of Management (BOM) by the Vice- Chancellor. In pursuant to a disciplinary proceedings instituted on complaints against the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has dismissed the services without conducting departmental enquiry, by invoking Power under the 9(viii)(b) and (c) of Chapter IX of Official Statues of the University. 7. Learned Senior Advocate while placing reliance upon ground of writ petition submitted that the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who is also Chairperson of the Board of Management (BOM) constituted under Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural University Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred as Act of 2013). He further submitted that the respondents have raised an objection that writ petition is not maintainable because departmental appeal is provided against the impugned order and without availing remedy of appeal instant writ cannot be filed. He further submitted that the respondents have raised an objection that writ petition is not maintainable because departmental appeal is provided against the impugned order and without availing remedy of appeal instant writ cannot be filed. He also submitted that BOM is chaired by the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of bias and influencing the decision of Board of Management therefore he has preferred to challenge illegal order by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that it is not necessary for petitioner to adopt forum of statutory remedy by preferring departmental appeal to the Board of Management (BOM) of University. 8. Learned Senior Advocate further referred the material placed on record and submitted that Chancellor of the University, Ex-Officio Governor of the State has issued a circular on 01.02.2022 in continuation of previous circular dated 19.06.2018 preventing and prohibiting the Vice-Chancellor from taking any policy decision which is effecting administration. He further submitted that on multiple counts the impugned order is suffering from malice and bias and same is contrary to the statutory provision of law. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed by invoking extra-ordinary power, hence duty lies upon respondents to justify the same. 9. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner further submitted that petitioner is in civil services and not in any military or para- military service, therefore dispensing with departmental enquiry is contrary to the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 . He further submitted that only on the ground that petitioner is influencing and creating indiscipline and posing threat to security of the University, the mandate of conducting enquiry was dispensed with by the Vice Chancellor. He also submitted that there is no justification on record to show that petitioner has ever created any ruckus or chaos in conducting enquiry and sufficient to draw a conclusion that the departmental enquiry is impossible, is impermissible. He also submitted that the legal opinion obtained by the Vice-Chancellor is also contrary to settled proposition of law and without considering the correct legal position, the impugned order is passed with malice. He also submitted that without recording proper justification the Vice- Chancellor has dispensed with the enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from the services of the University. He also submitted that the legal opinion obtained by the Vice-Chancellor is also contrary to settled proposition of law and without considering the correct legal position, the impugned order is passed with malice. He also submitted that without recording proper justification the Vice- Chancellor has dispensed with the enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from the services of the University. The impugned order is contrary to the settled proposition of law and also violative of principle of natural justice. 10. Learned Senior Advocate further referred Section 26 (9) of Act of 2013 and submitted that the Vice-Chancellor can give effect to decision of BOM regarding appointments, promotions and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University but in the instant case, present petitioner, who was appointed after approval of Board of Management was not dismissed after consulting and approval by the Board of Management, which is contrary to provisions of Act of 2013 and the Statutes. 11. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that there were serious complaints against the Vice-Chancellor for indulging in nepotism, favouristim, corruption and financial irregularities. He further submitted that the Chancellor has constituted a Committee to enquire into the allegations against the Vice- Chancellor and present petitioner has filed said complaints to the Chancellor. He also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has created a hostile work environment by promoting groupism and favouritism and to get rid of present petitioner, a false departmental action is initiated against the petitioner and without conducting enquiry, his services were terminated as dismissal. He further submitted that the extra-ordinary power of this Hon’ble Court can be exercised only in circumstances where there is exercise of arbitrary powers in dismissal of any employee then jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the only remedy left for the petitioner. 12. Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance upon judgments in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra), Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (13) SCC 244, Reena Rai Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2012 (10) SCC 215 , Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. And Ors. 1984 Supp SCC 554 , Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 1991 (1) SCC 362 , Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Pujab (1991) 1 SCC 362 Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. 2014 (13) SCC 244, Reena Rai Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2012 (10) SCC 215 , Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. And Ors. 1984 Supp SCC 554 , Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 1991 (1) SCC 362 , Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Pujab (1991) 1 SCC 362 Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. State of Bihar 2020 (3) SCC 153 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in cases of Hussain Ali Vs. State of Assam , 2022 (High Court of Gauhati), Sanjeev Kumar Vs, State of Haryana and Ors. (2021) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana), Preeti Devi Tiwari Vs. Union of India (2021) (High Court of Chattisgarh) and Hanuman Ram (Deceased) Vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) passed by different Benches of the High Courts. 13. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the petitioner was terminated by impugned order dated 14.07.2025 and as per Statute, he can file a statutory appeal before the Board of Management (BOM) constituted under Section 11 of the Act of 2013. He further submitted that petitioner has preferred a review petition to challenge order dated 14.07.2025 and the Chancellor (Governor) has constituted a Committee on 25.09.2025 under the Chairmanship of Sri Kailash Sodhani to enquire into the allegations against the Vice-Chancellor and also taking decision on review petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, two petitions for same relief is not maintainable. He further submitted that when alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, then the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised, so a writ is not maintainable. He placed reliance upon judgment in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip 2023 SCC Online SC 435, and submitted that case of present petitioner does not fall in any of the exception and the writ petition preferred by petitioner is not maintainable in view of the judgment dated 08.08.2013 in civil appeal No.6704/2013 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (SC) 14. Learned counsel also submitted that the Act of 2013 and the Statutes contain sufficient provision to address and to show that sufficient remedy is available therein. Chabbil Das Agarwal (SC) 14. Learned counsel also submitted that the Act of 2013 and the Statutes contain sufficient provision to address and to show that sufficient remedy is available therein. He also submitted that wherein alternative and efficacious remedy can be availed by the petitioner but petitioner instead of adopting statutory remedies, has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He further referred order dated 23.06.2025 in S.B. CWP No. 9383/2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that earlier writ petition preferred by petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn as he failed to get any relief from a Co-ordinate Bench. 15. Learned counsel for respondents further justified the order dated 14.07.2025 and submitted that there were serious charges of financial irregularities against the petitioner and on the basis of complaints received by the Vice-Chancellor, an action is initiated against the petitioner. He further submitted that the evidence and the material available with the Vice-Chancellor were sufficient to draw a conclusion that enquiry against the petitioner is neither feasible nor possible and in circumstances after recording his satisfaction, the Vice-Chancellor has dismissed the petitioner from the services of the University. He also submitted that this Hon’ble Court cannot substitute its wisdom upon the Vice-Chancellor while recording disagreement with impugned order dated 14.07.2025. He also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor is authorized under the law to terminate and dismiss any employee under the Act of 2013 and the Statutes made therein, therefore the exercise of power by Vice-Chancellor is fully justified from the material placed on record. 16. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material placed on record along with judgments as referred by both the parties. 17. The questions for consideration before us are: i Whether the writ petition is not maintainable in view of alternative and efficacious remedy available to petitioner? ii Whether dismissal order dated 14.07.2025 without conducting enquiry is justified? 18. In case of Commission of Income Tax (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering provision of Income Tax and the several judgments has laid down that where an alternative efficacious remedy is available then the High Court is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Article 148 of the Income Tax Act. 18. In case of Commission of Income Tax (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering provision of Income Tax and the several judgments has laid down that where an alternative efficacious remedy is available then the High Court is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Article 148 of the Income Tax Act. Further observed that there were exception to the principle of alternative remedy and same is recognized as where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or resort to invoke the provision which are repealed or when an order has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice. 19. In case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) again considering several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court it was laid down that powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extra-ordinary circumstances in matter pertaining to procedure and adjudicatory scheme qua Statutes. 20. The impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is passed by the Vice-Chancellor and last few paragraphs indicate that petitioner is not cooperating in the enquiry as he is posing a threat to the discipline and security of the University, therefore conducting enquiry is not possible and same is reproduced again for ready reference: 21. It indicated that order is passed by the Vice-Chancellor, who is appointed by the Chancellor pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Act of 2013 in consultation with State Government upon recommendation of a Selection Committee. The Vice-Chancellor is an officer of the University as defined under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are provided under Section 26 of the Act and sub-section (ix) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the decision of the Board (BOM) regarding appointment, promotion and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University. 22. Rule 1 of Chapter II of Statutes provides for Board of Management whereas Section 11 of the Act of 2013 provides that Board of Management shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor as Ex- Officio Chairman. 22. Rule 1 of Chapter II of Statutes provides for Board of Management whereas Section 11 of the Act of 2013 provides that Board of Management shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor as Ex- Officio Chairman. Rule 1 of Chapter III of Statutes empowers the Vice-Chancellor to appoint employees of the University against sanctioned posts whereas Section (2)(xiv) empowers the Board to approve recommendation of selection committee for appointment in prescribed manner of officers, teachers, employees of the rank of Assistant Registrar and above in the University. 23. Rule 1 of Chapter XI of the Statutes provides that all appointment of Teachers of the University shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of merit as recommended by Selection Committee duly approved by Board of Management (BOM). It clearly indicates that a teacher can be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor only after approval of the Board of Management (BOM). 24. Rule 2(vii) of Chapter IX of Statutes defines the disciplinary authority which means appointing authority or to whom such power is delegated. Rule (ix) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for penalties, appeals and review. 25. Rule 9(ii)(b) of Chapter IX of Statutes provides for major penalties and we are reproducing as under: i Demolition/reduction to a lower grade or post or fixation to lower pay scale/stage in a time of scale of pay, ii Compulsory retirement, iii Removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment, iv Dismissal from service which shall be disqualification for future employment, v Withholding of increment(s) with cumulative effect. 26. Further Rule 9(iii) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for disciplinary authorities and same is described as under: a The appointing/competent authority may impose on Teacher/Officer/Employee any of the penalties specified in the rule No.9 (i & ii) of this Chapter. b A competent authority as declared by BOM may impose on Teacher/Officer/Employee any of the penalties specified in Rule 9(i & ii) of this chapter. 27. Rule 9(v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for procedure for imposing major penalties and it indicates that no order to impose any major penalty on the teacher/officer employee shall be passed except after an enquiry held in manner prescribed hereafter. 28. 27. Rule 9(v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for procedure for imposing major penalties and it indicates that no order to impose any major penalty on the teacher/officer employee shall be passed except after an enquiry held in manner prescribed hereafter. 28. Rule 9(viii) of the Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for special procedure in certain cases and we are reproducing as under: a Where a penalty is imposed on a delinquent Teacher/Officer/employee on the grounds of conduct which has led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge or b Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, or c Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the University, it is not expedient to follow such procedure. 29. Aforementioned clearly indicates that in case of conviction on a criminal charge or reasonable not practicable to follow the procedure or in the interest of the security of University, the order may be passed considering the circumstances of the case. Herein this case impugned order is passed by invoking provisions of special procedure. 30. Rule 9(ix) of Chapter IX of the Statute provides for appeal and same is reproduced as under: a In the case of an order which is appealable, the authority passing the order shall, within a reasonable time give a certified copy of the order free of cost to the person against whom the order is passed. b No appeal under these rules shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of 30 days from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against. Provided that the appellate authorities may entertain that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time. 31. Rule 9 (xvii) of the Chapter IX of the Statutes provides that Chancellor is having power to review. As per Schedule-I, disciplinary authority is the Board of Management (BOM). The objection about maintainability of writ petition: 32. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. 31. Rule 9 (xvii) of the Chapter IX of the Statutes provides that Chancellor is having power to review. As per Schedule-I, disciplinary authority is the Board of Management (BOM). The objection about maintainability of writ petition: 32. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered several judgments and laid down that where there is a scheme under any statutes for redressal of grievances with provision for technical or suitable relief then the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further as a general rule of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy there are some exceptions and same are as under: (I) Where the statutory authority has acted contrary to the provisions of the enactment in question, (ii) The statutory authority acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, (iii) The authority has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, (iv) When an order has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice. These exceptions are not exhaustive but still it is our duty to consider that whether the remedy under the statute is effective or not or it is just a mere formality with no substantive relief. The Court has to consider that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” then the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 33. In case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide but are required to be exercised only in extra- ordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to procedure and adjudicatory scheme qua the statutes. 34. The judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) pertains to issue of assessment of income tax under Section 148 of Income Tax Act whereas in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) the matter pertains to commercial transaction in relation to the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) pertains to issue of assessment of income tax under Section 148 of Income Tax Act whereas in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) the matter pertains to commercial transaction in relation to the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. While considering the provisions of law in both the cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there were a creation of a statutory tribunal under the Act to exercise the power of authority to adjudicate the dispute, and direct invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial and income tax matters were discouraged. Thus, both the judgments are not applicable in the facts of the case, as this is not a case of commercial transaction; rather, the petitioner is an employee of a State-funded University established under the Act of 2013. 35. In case of Reena Rai Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dismissal of any employee without fair enquiry violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India and it also violates the principles of natural justice. 36. In the case of Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. And Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that fairness, impartiality and adherence to procedure are essential in departmental proceeding. In case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Pujab (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is duty of the disciplinary authority to apply its independent mind to the record and the procedure adopted must adhere to principles of natural justice. 37. In case of Leelavathi N & Ors Etc vs The State of Karnataka & Ors Etc 2025 INSC 1242 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “37. Nevertheless, a writ petition under Article 226 may still be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of such an alternative remedy in exceptional circumstances, including the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution; instances of ultra vires or illegal exercise of power by a statutory authority; violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the vires of the parent legislation itself is under challenge. While these exceptions have been carved out and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions, the facts of the present case do not fall within any of these exceptions so asto warrant the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court.” 38. When we consider the provisions as referred under the Act of 2013 and statutes made therein then it is apparent that the Board of management is constituted under Section 11 and the Vice- Chancellor is ex-officio Chairman of the Board. Section 12(xiv) empowers the Board to approve the recommendation of the selection committee for appointment of officers, teachers, employees of the rank of Assistant Registrar or above in the University. 39. Chapter VI of the statutes provides for manner of appointment of teachers of the University after approval by the BOM on the basis of proposal submitted by the Vice-Chancellor. 40. Rule 9 (ix) of Chapter IX provides for appeal against order of suspension and or imposing penalty and as per Schedule-I, appellate authority for major penalty is the Board of Management (BOM). 41. The provision of Act of 2013 and the statutes made therein clearly provides that the appointment for teachers and officers above the position of Assistant Registrar has to be approved by the Board of Management (BOM) and then the Vice-Chancellor is authorized to issue appointment order. It means that without approval by the BOM, the Vice-Chancellor of University could not make any appointment. Similarly the meeting of Board of Management (BOM) has to be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, as ex-officio chairman. 42. In the instant case, the impugned order is issued by the Vice- Chancellor and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred judgment in case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267 and we are reproducing a paragraph from Ram and Shyam Company (supra) and same is sufficient to answer objection raised by learned counsel for respondents: “Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of the way the contention that found favour with the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267 and we are reproducing a paragraph from Ram and Shyam Company (supra) and same is sufficient to answer objection raised by learned counsel for respondents: “Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of the way the contention that found favour with the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench recalling the observations of this court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries (1979) 4 SCC 22 rejected the writ petition observing that the petitioner who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under, Art. 226 of the Constitution must have exhausted the normal statutory remedies available to him. We remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact in the very decision relied upon by the High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh 1958 SCR 595 it is observed that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It should be made specifically clear that where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Art. 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits. Look at the fact situation in this case. Power was exercised formally by the authority set up under the Rules to grant contract but effectively and for all practical purposes by the Chief Minister of the State. To whom do you, Appeal in a State administration against the decision of the Chief Minister? Look at the fact situation in this case. Power was exercised formally by the authority set up under the Rules to grant contract but effectively and for all practical purposes by the Chief Minister of the State. To whom do you, Appeal in a State administration against the decision of the Chief Minister? The cliche of appeal from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” can only be bettered by appeal from ones own order to oneself, Therefore this is a case in which the High Court was not at all justified in throwing out the petition on the untenable ground that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy. The High Court did not pose to itself the question, who would grant relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State. To whom did the High Court want the appeal to, be filed over the decision of the Chief Minister? There was no answer and that by itself without anything more would be sufficient to set aside the judgment of the High Court.” 43. Herein this case, the Vice-Chancellor, without approval of the Board of Management, has issued the impugned order on 14.07.2025, and now, if an appeal is preferred before the Board of Management, again sitting under the chairmanship of the very same Vice-Chancellor, then certainly the appeal would be from Caesar to Caesar’s wife 44. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the provision of appeal to the Board of Management is just an eye-wash, and it is not an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Act of 2013 and the statutes made therein. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 45. A review petition is said to be pending before the Vice- Chancellor, but only an order is placed on record to show that the Chancellor has constituted a committee by appointing Dr. Kailash Sodhani as Coordinator, and the committee was also directed to look into the allegations against the Vice-Chancellor. The order dated 25.09.2025 itself is sufficient to show that the Chancellor has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law under Sections 9(i) and (ii) of the Act of 2013. 46. Kailash Sodhani as Coordinator, and the committee was also directed to look into the allegations against the Vice-Chancellor. The order dated 25.09.2025 itself is sufficient to show that the Chancellor has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law under Sections 9(i) and (ii) of the Act of 2013. 46. The instant writ petition is preferred on 18.07.2025, and there is no record to show that the review application was filed prior to filing of the present petition. Therefore, the pendency of the review petition before the Chancellor is not a ground to draw a conclusion that the current writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is maintainable, and the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is not maintainable. Merits of the Writ Petiton: 47. The impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is passed under Rule 9(viii)(b) and (c) of Chapter IX of the Statutes of the University. The Vice-Chancellor has recorded his own satisfaction in dispensing with the regular enquiry and invoking the provision for dismissal of the present petitioner. The provision for dismissal in such circumstances as provided under the Statutes is reproduced as under. (a) Where a penalty is imposed on a delinquent Teacher/Officer/employee on the grounds of conduct which has led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge or (b) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, or (c)Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the University, it is not expedient to follow such procedure. 48. As per the provision, there is neither any criminal case nor any conviction by any competent authority; therefore, Rule 9(viii) (a) of the Statutes is not applicable. There is no record to show that any criminal case is registered against the petitioner. 49. The Vice-Chancellor has recorded his satisfaction that “it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules”. The impugned order, which we have referred to ad verbatim, clearly indicates that no instances were reported to show why and how the inquiry is not practicable. Similarly, there is no document on record to show as to why holding an inquiry is impracticable. 50. The impugned order, which we have referred to ad verbatim, clearly indicates that no instances were reported to show why and how the inquiry is not practicable. Similarly, there is no document on record to show as to why holding an inquiry is impracticable. 50. The phrase “impracticable to hold enquiry” generally refers to a situation where it is not reasonably possible or feasible to conduct a formal inquiry — such as in circumstances beyond control like threat to witnesses, disappearance of witnesses, destruction of material evidence, impracticability to procure material, risk to safety, or natural calamities etc. 51. The Vice-Chancellor has also not recorded any reasons for impracticability of holding the inquiry. There is no instance to show any imminent threat or hostile environment, therefore recording satisfaction of impracticability is neither genuine nor bonafide, thus the requirement under Rule 9 (viii)(b) is not justified from material on record. 52. Another reason is in interest of the security of University it is not expedient to follow procedure as mandated under Rule 9(viii) (c) of the Statutes. There is no record to show that there existed a threat of violent agitation or any disruptive activity, lead by the petitioner. 53. Learned Senior Advocate has referred judgement in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra) where three situations were mentioned in dispensing with departmental enquiry. Herein not a single complaint is filed in any of the police station against the petitioner to establish that petitioner has intimidated or threatened anyone for deposing against him. Similarly not a single record is filed to show that present petitioner has ever created any threat to safety and security of the University thus nothing is on record to justify the satisfaction recorded by the Vice-Chancellor. 54. After considering judgment in case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and provision of protection under provision of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, D.P.&T., Govt. of India in O.M. dated 25.11.2022, has explained Special Procedure in Disciplinary Action after collating the previous O.Ms. It clarified that the exceptional circumstances do not give unbridled power to the competent authority when it takes action under any of the three clauses in the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution or any service rule corresponding to it. The competent authority is expected to exercise its power under this proviso after due caution and considerable application of mind. The competent authority is expected to exercise its power under this proviso after due caution and considerable application of mind. At last, it cautioned that, nothing should be done that would create the impression that the action taken is arbitrary or malafide. 55. Having considered aforementioned, the allegations against the present petitioner were of financial irregularities and misappropriation, which includes fabrication of documents and evidence by filing false claims, but there is nothing on record to justify dispensation with the inquiry as mandated under Rule 9 (v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes of the University. 56. In the case of Reena Rai v. State of Haryana (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. The termination of any employee is possible only after strict compliance with the procedures prescribed under the Rules, as there is a constitutional protection, and if there is a violation of any fundamental right or constitutional right, an employee has the right to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 57. It is necessary, before imposing any penalty, particularly a major penalty, that there should be a fair and unbiased inquiry wherein the employee is informed of the charges and is provided and allowed an adequate opportunity to defend himself to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is also necessary for the employer to consider imposing punishment proportionate to the misconduct, and no employer can award a punishment disproportionate to the misconduct. 58. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order is not only contrary to the provisions under the Statutes and the Act of 2013, but also violative of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the issue is decided in favour of the present petitioner, and as a result, the instant petition is liable to be allowed. 59. As a result, the writ petition preferred by petitioner Dr. Arjun Singh Baloda under Article 226 of Constitution of India is partly allowed and impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated to the position, where he was prior to issuance of impugned order dated 14.07.2025. The petitioner is also entitled to all benefits and continuity of service, as if the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 was never passed. 60. The petitioner is reinstated to the position, where he was prior to issuance of impugned order dated 14.07.2025. The petitioner is also entitled to all benefits and continuity of service, as if the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 was never passed. 60. The respondents are at liberty to consider holding of an enquiry on the allegations and charges against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 9(v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes. 61. No order as to cost.