Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as well as the enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.

2. The petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University) which was established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This was his second tenure of three years and was in continuity of his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 and was to come to an end on 31st July, 2005 but the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 16th July, 2005 purporting to exercise his powers under Section 12(12) of the Act removed the petitioner. The said removal order was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 24th June, 2005 issued by the Chancellor of the University whereby the petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(12) of the Act on the basis of the enquiry report which was enclosed with the said notice. This enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 had been submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi pursuant to the directions issued by the State Government under Section 8(1) of the Act.

3. Sri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Sri Shailendra, Shri G.K. Singh and Ms. Neela Gokhale submitted that the order for removal of the Vice-Chancellor could be passed by the Chancellor of the University under Section 12(12) of the Act only after complying with the requirements set forth in the sub-section but in complete defiance of the aforesaid provisions and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Chancellor of the University passed the impugned order for removal of the Vice-Chancellor. Elaborating his submissions, he contended that the Chancellor could pass an order under Section 12(12) of the Act only after making such enquiry as he deemed proper, if in his opinion the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the Act or abused the powers vested in him or if it otherwise appeared to him that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office was detrimental to the interest of the University. In the present case merely a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi to the State Government under Section 8(1) of the Act was forwarded to the petitioner enabling him to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why he should not be removed from office. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it was passed in breach of the provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act and in the breach of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that earlier also complaints were made against the petitioner during his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 as Vice-Chancellor of the University which were inquired into and rejected as were found to be false and baseless. However, subsequently similar complaints were again entertained in the year 2004 regarding the issues which had already been inquired into and it is on the basis of these complaints order impugned has been passed. He, therefore, submitted that it was not permissible for the Chancellor to rely upon the said report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi on stale allegations and take action against the petitioner for his removal in hot haste on 16th July, 2005 as his term was, in any case, going to expire on 31st July, 2005. The Chancellor passed the impugned order for malice against the petitioner. The Chancellor wrote letters to the Prime Minister and other Ministers against the petitioner during the pendency of enquiry on 12.5.2005 and again on 20.7.2005 (Annex. 2 to the supplementary affidavit) after removal. In the subsequent letter in