1. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein. The writ petitioner/respondent herein filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of termination dated 04.04.2012 passed by the first appellant herein and quash the same. The writ petition, after contest, was allowed on 08.04.2013 and the respondents therein was directed to reinstate the writ petitioner into service and liberty was also granted to the respondents to continue the enquiry from the stage at which the irregularities crept in and further direction was given to the appellants herein to furnish copies of the documents, summon the witnesses for cross-examination by the respondent herein and proceed to pass orders afresh. The respondents in the writ petition, aggrieved by the said order allowing the writ petition, have filed this writ appeal. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

1.1. The writ petitioner/respondent herein is holding M.Sc., and Ph.D. in applied Biology and according to her, she was working in the areas of Cancer Biology, Immunology and Molecular Biology between 1989 and 2000 in the capacity as a Scientist and she was posted as Postdoctoral fellow at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy, Philadelphia, USA between 1998 and 1992 and thereafter, worked in various prestigious universities and institutions in USA until 1999. The writ petitioner/respondent herein after returning to India, working as Head of the Department of Biotechnology and Asian Institute of Management and Information Technology between 2000 and 2004 and at the time of filing the writ petition, she was involved in the research of metastasis of breast cancer and related ailments.

1.2. It is stated by the writ petitioner that on 21.06.2008, she was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Biotechnology in the Faculty of Sciences and Humanities in the first appellant University, which is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short 'UGC') and according to her, right from the inception of her entering into service in the above capacity, she was discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors and her research also brought laurels to the first appellant University and she has never been visited with any adverse remarks or memos etc.

1.3. The writ petitioner would further aver that she was promoted as Senior Lecturer by the first appellant herein vide order 05.05.2010. The writ petitioner is also a Ph.D. guide for 7 lecturers, consisting of 3 full time and 4 part time lecturers. The writ petitioner/respondent herein also made a request to the first appellant herein to grant promotion as Associate Professor in view of her academic credentials, but it was not favoured with any response.

1.4. It is stated by the writ petitioner that she received a memo dated 14.02.2012 from the Dean of the Faculty of Sciences and Humanities of the first appellant University calling upon her to submit her explanation on or before 20.02.2012 as to why disciplinary action as per the service rules should not be taken for her alleged failure to take classes for III year B.Sc., and I year M.Sc., since January 2012, which is considered as dereliction of duty. The petitioner submitted her response denying the same and further stated that she had taken the classes and there was no dereliction of duty on her part. However, she was issued with another memorandum dated 24.02.2012 referring to certain complaints given by the students and the writ petitioner/respondent herein also submitted her explanation dated 29.02.2012 refuting the allegations and also gave a detailed explanation.

1.5. The first appellant University, not satisfied with the explanation, constituted an Enquiry Committee and the writ petitioner/respondent herein appeared before the said Committee and stated that she did not receive copies of complaint or documents relied on to