By the Court.—We have heard Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Satish Mandhyan appears for the University.

2. The petitioner is serving as Professor in the Department of Commerce, Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. He was appointed as Coordinator of B.Ed. Examination by the University for the period upto 17.5.2008. By this writ petition he has prayed for directions to set aside the ex parte enquiry report dated 12.12.2007 and suspension order dated 26.4.2009. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the enquiry under Section 8 (1) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and to proceed for enquiry under Section 8 (4) only, if anything is found against him. He has also made prayer to direct the respondents to verify whether any complaint in the form of affidavit exists and whether any prima facie case exists with regard to irregularities in B.Ed. examination.

3. The writ petition was filed on 8th May, 2009. The matter was heard and was directed to be put up for further arguments on 30.6.2009 and was adjourned on 3.7.2009. In the meantime, the Executive Council by its recommendations dated 28.6.2009 communicated to the petitioner by order dated 30.6.2009, decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 30.6.2009 has dismissed the petitioner from service.

4. The petitioner filed an amendment application on 8.7.2009 challenging the order of the Executive Council dismissing him from service and the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The amendment application was allowed on 8.10.2009.

5. Shri B.D. Mandhyan has raised objections to the amendment application on various grounds, including the alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the order of the Vice-Chancellor dismissing the petitioner from service, by making a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

6. Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed, when the petitioner was working on the post of Professor in the Department of Commerce. He had initially challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on an ex parte fact finding enquiry and on which he was suspended on 26.4.2009. A First Information Report was lodged against him on 24.5.2009 and charge-sheet was filed on 22.4.2009 by relying upon same preliminary enquiry report. After exchange of affidavits in the writ petition challenging the suspension order, the Court had fixed 30.6.2009 for further hearing. Shri Shailendra submits that taking advantage of the vacations of the Court the Acting Vice-Chancellor (the Commissioner of the Division) completed all the proceedings within three or four days, as claimed. The disciplinary enquiry proceeded ex parte on 26.6.2009, and on which an ex parte report dated 27.6.2009 was submitted. The meeting of the Executive Council was convened on 28.6.2009 in which six new members inducted on 27.6.2009, participated. The agenda of the meeting was not circulated and on the same day on 28.6.2009 the Executive Council considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee, to remove the petitioner, and passed a resolution to dismiss the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor passed the order of dismissal on the third day on 30.6.2009.

7. The petitioner was the Coordinator of B.Ed. Examination. A complaint was made by one Shri Durga Prasad, the Ex-President, Bahujan Samaj Party, Gorakhpur in respect of large scale irregularities of the conduct of the B.Ed. Examination in the affiliated colleges. The petitioner had worked as Coordinator, a post on which he was appointed, on temporary arrangement upto 17.5.2008. It was alleged in the complaint addressed to the Chief Minister that in respect of admissions of B.Ed. course of the years 2005-06