The sole petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order dated 03.11.2000 appointing the fourth respondent as Enquiry Officer by the first respondent-University and also to set aside the order dated 11.02.2002 removing the petitioner from service on theOfficer by the first respondent-University and also to set aside the order dated 11.02.2002 removing the petitioner from service on the ground that the orders are illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 03.10.1968 as an Attender in the first respondent-Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. On 09.04.1974 he was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC, for short). On 04.04.1987 the petitioner was placed under suspension; on 12.11.1987 his services were terminated. The petitioner challenged the termination orders, through Writ Petition No.5088 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court held that the termination of the petitioner without due enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the termination, through orders dated 26.10.1999. Basing upon the orders of the Division Bench, the petitioner was restored to duty, through orders dated 18.05.2000. The petitioner reported to duty on 12.06.2000. The petitioner was immediately placed under suspension on the very next day on13.06.2000. The petitioner filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.10468 of 2000. Inter alia, the petitioner contended that in view of the orders of the Division Bench in W.P.No.5088 of 1988, the fresh suspension of the petitioner was bad and was liable to be set aside. A learned single Judge did not agree with this contention of the petitioner. He clarified that the Division Bench set aside the removal order on the ground that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner; recording that the fresh suspension of the petitioner was with a view to conduct enquiry, the learned single Judge directed the University to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of the order dated 20.06.2000.

3. However, the University filed WPMP No.24251 of 2000 in WP No.10468 of 2000 seeking for extension of time to comply the enquiry. The petitioner herein has taken a stand therein that the University has not been paying subsistence allowance under the revised pay scales. Recording that the petitioner herein was entitled to subsistence allowance in terms of the revised pay scales, WPMP No.24251 of 2000 was allowed on 19.10.2000 granting extension of time to complete the enquiry by three months.

4. The University thereafter appointed the fourth respondent, who was a retired District Judge practicing as an advocate at that time, as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer (fourth respondent) issued a charge sheet consisting of four charges on 23.11.2000. The petitioner answered the charge sheet on 28.11.2000. The learned Enquiry Officer examined Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, a retired Junior Assistant and M. Chinni Krishna as PWs.1 & 2. The petitioner did not choose to examine anyone on his side. The petitioner filed written arguments contending that the charges have not been proved. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted report on 28.02.2001 holding that charges 3 & 4 have not been proved and that charges 1 & 2 have been established.

5. A show cause notice was issued on 18.07.2001 calling the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be removed from service.

The petitioner offered his explanation on 13.09.2001. Fresh explanation was again called for on 20.10.2001. The petitioner submitted further explanation on 01.11.2001. Not satisfied with the explanation, impugned orders dated 11.02.2002 removing the petitioner from service were passed.

6. Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the removal order on the ground that the very appointment of an outsider of the University as an Enquiry Officer is beyond t