JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :— This appeal by leave is from a decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the respondents petition for a writ of certiorari. In so doing the Court quashed departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent and the resultant order terminating his services.

2. The facts are substantially undisputed and may briefly be stated as follows :

Respondent-Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan was at the relevant time the Deputy Registrar of the Marathwada University. One Mr. Yelikar was working then as Controller of Examinations. In or about April 1976, Mr.Yelikar proceeded on leave and the present respondent was directed to discharge the duties of the Controller of Examinations. Accordingly, he joined his new assignment and continued to hold that post when the controversy which culminated in his dismissal took place.

3. It is said that one Mr. Swaminathan from Madras was entrusted with the printing works needed to conduct annual examinations of the University for the years 1974 and 1975. Mr. Swaminathan submitted his bills amounting about Rs. 6,00,000/- for the work performed by him. The bills were not cleared immediately, and Mr. Swaminathan complained to the University authorities. He also submitted a petition to the Prime Minister of India which was forwarded to the University for immediate action. This led to an enquiry to find out whether the bills were deliberately kept pending with any ulterior motive. The Executive Council of the University appointed a four-member committee including the Vice-Chancellor to enquire into the matter. The committee after investigation submitted a report in November 1977 making some prima facie observations against the respondent. Thereupon, the Executive Council desired to have the matter thoroughly examined by another committee. It appointed Mr. N. B. Chavan for the purpose. Mr. Chavan made a detailed enquiry but found nothing against the respondent. On December 23, 1978, he submitted a report stating inter alia that there was no delay in clearing the said bills and if there was any delay, it was justified in the circumstances. He has stated that the University utilised the time for internal audit in which it was found that the claim of Mr. Swaminathan was excessive to the extent of Rs. 48,000/- and odd. The report of Mr. Chavan thus gave a clean chit to the respondent as to his conduct in discharging the duties as Controller of Examinations.

4. If the Executive Council had accepted the report and closed the matter that would have been better. But unfortunately, it was not done and another chapter was opened. On March 22, 1979, the report of Mr. Chavan was placed before the Executive Council which without taking any decision entrusted the question to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor was present in that meeting and agreed to take a decision in about a month. But what he did was entirely different. Purporting to act under the powers given to him by the Executive Council, he directed departmental enquiry against the respondent. He appointed Mr. Motale, Advocate as an Inquiry Officer who framed three charges : First charge impeached the respondent of intentionally delaying the clearance of the bills of Mr. Swaminathan and thus tarnishing the image of the University. Second charge alleged that the respondent did not place before the Executive Council, the letters addressed by the Chancellor of the University on July 23, 1976 and August 19, 1976. Third charge accused the respondent for not producing all the available papers for scrutiny by the one-man committee headed by Mr. Chavan.

5. On October 26, 1979, Mr. Motale submitted his enquiry report to the Vice-Chancellor holding the respondent guilty of the charges. After a usual procedure of giving show cause notice and considering the reply thereto, the Vice-Chancellor decided to dismiss the respondent, On January 2, 1980, he accordingly made an order.

6. The matter did not rest there. The respondent moved the High