JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.2.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 17.8.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the service of the petitioner and prayed inter alia that:-

“(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21/2/2015 passed by the respondent no.3 [Annexure-A] and order dated 17/8/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 [Annexure-A].

(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 21/2/2015 passed by the respondent no.3 [Annexure-A] and order dated 17/8/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 [Annexure-A].

(C) To grant any such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(D) To award cost of the petition."

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Junior Clerk and was appointed as such on 22/9/1981 by the respondent no.2 University. The petitioner had worked with the respondent no.3 as Junior Clerk [Cash] for the period of 24 years from 22/9/1981 to 8/5/2005.

2.1 During initial period, the petitioner requested one Mr. Mekwan to take charge of Cash, as it was condition in his order of transfer to take charge of Cashier. However, when Mr. Mekwan refused to take charge, the petitioner informed head of the unit - Dr. P.C. Patel and when Dr. P.C. Patel directed Mr. Mekwan to take charge of cash, Mr. Mekwan refused to keep charge. Therefore, Dr. P.C. Patel requested the petitioner to keep charge of cash with him.

2.2 In the meeting of the employees held on 5/7/2007, Dr. P.C. Patel had taken responsibility of any errors in the cash and also made a statement that he will make payment for the same and thus the charge of Cash was continued with the petitioner.

2.3 For some irregularity in cash maintained by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 issued charge-sheet to the petitioner, Dr. P.C. Patel and R.A. Vohra on 1/3/2011, alleging that some financial irregularities have been committed.

2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 29/3/2011 to the charge-sheet explaining that so far as allegation no. 1 is concerned, the amount of difference has been deposited afterwards, the amount as alleged in allegation no. 2 of Rs.1,735/- is correct and proper, so far allegation no. 3 is concerned, the amount of Rs.1,900/- is being recovered from the salary of the petitioner, etc., and ultimately submitted that the errors are being committed because of some other difficulties.

2.5 Thereafter, Inquiry Officer Mr. R.M. Mehta was appointed vide letter dated 12/9/2011 by the respondent no. 3 and inquiry proceedings were commenced against the petitioner and others. After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 31/7/2012, wherein allegation nos. 1 to 8 are held as proved and allegation nos. 9 to 12 are held as not proved.

2.6 Thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice dated 8/8/2012 to the petitioner and the petitioner gave reply dated 24/8/2012 to the said notice, whereby the petitioner has given consent to recover the amount alleged with a view to file the notice considering the service of 21 years rendered by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner exchanged correspondence with the respondent no. 3 relating to the inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent no. 3 passed office order dated 21/12/2012 dismissing the petitioner from service.

2.7 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the respondent no. 2 on 22/11/2013. The respondent no. 2 issued letter dated 15/9/2014 to the petitioner regarding date of hearing being 20/9/2014. On 20/9/2014 the petitioner made statement during the heari