1. The petitioner in this case was appointed as the Registrar of the Calicut University and he was functioning in that capacity thereafter at all material times. The first respondent is the Chancellor of the Calicut University and the second respondent is the Calicut University, represented by the Registrar-in¬charge.

2. Complaints were received alleging maladministration in the Calicut University and the first respondent, on the strength of Statute 69(2) of Chap.4 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, secured the assistance of the Director of Vigilance Investigation, Kerala, to enquire into the allegations. That agency conducted an enquiry, and, Ext. P12 dated 7-9-1978 is the copy of the report submitted by the Director of Vigilance Investigation, setting out the various complaints and his findings on each charge. The accounts of the University also were caused to be audited by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts, which led to another report. On perusal of the two reports the first respondent was minded to take action against the petitioner, who was functioning as Registrar of the University, and issued Ext. P13 order dated 27-2-1979 placing the petitioner und