The petitioner, who was working as Professor in the respondent University, was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies for a period of five years from the date of entry in office, or till the attainment of 56 years, whichever is earlier. Ext.P1 is the appointment order issued to the petitioner in this connection.

It is stated that, pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was relieved from the respondent University by Ext.P2 order dated 01.03.2011, and sanction was granted to him to relieve his duties at the respondent University with effect from 01.03.2011, by Ext.P3 order dated 09.03.2011. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 order dated 27.06.2011, the petitioner was granted sanction to go on deputation for the period from 01.03.2011 to 30.04.2015. It would appear that thereafter, by Ext.P10 charge sheet and statement of allegations that was served on the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the 3rd respondent, who is the Registrar of the respondent University. In the writ petition, the challenge is to Ext.P10 memo of charges and statement of allegations served on the petitioner principally, on the ground of jurisdiction. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that as per the statutory provisions of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 read with the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Statute 1991 and the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Statute 1975, disciplinary proceedings against a Professor of the University could have been initiated only by the Vice Chancellor, in the event of the proposal being for imposition of minor penalty, or by the Syndicate, in the event of the proposal being for the imposition of a major penalty. It is contended that, inasmuch as Ext.P10 was issued by the Registrar of the University, the same could not be legally sustained. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, Bombay and Others [AIR 1966 334], Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. V.K. Brahmanandam and Others [2008 (5) SCC 241], Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another [2003 (6) SCC 545] and Union of India and Others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar [2013 (4) SCC 161] in support of the contention.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that, although the charge sheet and statement of allegations is signed by the Registrar of the respondent University, the draft of the said document, after vetting by the legal adviser, was placed before the Pro-Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Vice Chancellor of the University, and the said draft was approved by the said authority. It was only thereafter that it was served on the petitioner. It is also stated, by placing reliance on Exts.R1(h) and R1(j) produced along with the counter affidavit, that the Syndicate of the respondent University had resolved to initiate steps to terminate the services of the petitioner and the Syndicate had, by resolution dated 28.02.2013 ratified the action of the Registrar in issuing the charge memo pursuant to the orders of the Vice Chancellor. On the basis of the said averments in the counter affidavit, it is contended that there is no jurisdictional irregularity in the matter of issuance of Ext.P10 charge sheet and statement of allegations to the petitioner and hence, there is no merit in the writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, duly assisted by Sri. Antony Mukkath for the petitioners, and Sri. V.A. Mohammed, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that this is a case where, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, who was functioning as a Professor, under the respondent University. The pro