The Chancellor's satisfaction that the Vice-Chancellor's continuance in office was detrimental to the interests of the University had to be based on objective material.

V. Ratnam, C.J.—The petitioner Dr. K.C. Malhotra joined H.P. University since its very inception and had been posted as Dean of Sciences, Dean of Students Welfare and Dean of Studies. He was appointed as an acting Vice-Chancellor in the University of Himachal Pradesh on 18th January, 1986 and with effect from 1st March, 1986, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor for a period of five years as was then prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh University Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), The Act was later on amended and the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor was reduced to three years. However, the petitioner continued to have renewal of the term as Vice-Chancellor and finally on 6th July, 1991, his term of office of Vice-Chancellor was renewed for a further period of three years vide order dated 6th July, 1991 (Annexure PA). The petitioners three years term was to expire in July, 1994 but in the meantime on 22nd September, 1993, a notification was issued by the respondent No.1 purporting to be in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 12 (5) of the Act, ordering removal of the petitioner from the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University, Copy of the notification is Annexure PG.

2. Dr. K.C. Malhotra, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for quashing the Notification No. 4-5/71-GS-IV dated 22nd September, 1993 issued by Secretary to Chancellor (Annexure PG) whereby the petitioner had been removed as Vice-Chancellor of H.P. University, on various grounds, as enumerated in para 15 of the petition, which for the sake of convenience and for proper appreciation of the matter under controversy, are being reproduced hereunder in verbatim : (i) that the aforesaid notification is in-complete violation of the provisions of section 12 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Act. Subsection (5) of section 12 of the Act prescribes as under :— "if in the opinion of the Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act or abuses the powers vested in him or if it appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interests of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such enquiry as he deems proper and in consultation with the State Government, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor." A bare perusal of the provisions of the Act clearly show that the Chancellor has to form his opinion as to the fact that Vice-Chancellor has wilfully omitted or refund to carry out the provisions of the Act or abused the powers vested in him or if it appears to the Chancellor that continuance of Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interests of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such enquiry as he deems proper and in consultation with the State Government, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor. The holding of an enquiry which is deemed proper by the Chancellor is a sine qua non for exercise of the powers of removal of the Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor. In this matter, the Chancellor is bound to hold an enquiry wherein such matters which require evidence to be led has to be led in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner has to be given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses Such enquiry has to be a reasonable enquiry in conformity with the principles of natural justice and also in conformity with the statutory provisions. The Act does not give arbitrary powers to the Chancellor not to hold an enquiry at all or to prescribe a mode which does not give reasonable opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor to defend himself nor does it entirely dispense with the norms of statutory presumption and the established manner of practice of adducing evidence if the allegations or otherwise require to be established by oral or documentary evidence. In this respect, the Vice-Chancellor is also entitled to cross-examine the witnesses if the charges are of such a nature, (ii) That petitioner maint