The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action in cases of employee misconduct, as mandated by Statute 32. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a rational and reasonable administrative action in disciplinary matters.

R. K. Agrawal, J.—Since both these writ petitions relate to the same petitioner, they are being heard and decided by a common judgment.

2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42712 of 2000 has been filed by Shyam Dev seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23rd August, 2000, passed by the Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, respondent No. 1 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs whereas Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24021 of 2003 has been filed by the same petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice issued by the Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and the Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, which, according to the petitioner, has not been served upon him. Vide order dated 23rd August, 2000, the Vice Chancellor had terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground of proved charges of misconduct and indiscipline. By the notice sought to be quashed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24021 of 2003, it is alleged by the petitioner that he is being evicted from the premises allotted to him.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows :

"According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a class IV employee on 24th September, 1971 in the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). At the time when the termination order was passed, he was working as Block servant in Vivekanand Hostel. He was elected as Secretary of the non-teaching employees association in the year 1993 and thereafter President of the association in the year 1994. According to the petitioner, in the year 1998, a show cause notice was issued to him for certain charges, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and enquiry was held. Vide order dated 25th May, 1998, punishment was awarded whereunder his two increments were stopped. The aforesaid order was accepted by the petitioner as he did not challenge it any further. Again in the year 1999, certain demands were raised by the non-teaching employees of the University in which the petitioner took keen interest. The matter was compromised under the signature of the Registrar of the University on 15th September, 1999 and it was decided that the employees shall not be victimized. No action was taken pursuant to the show cause notice dated 13th February, 1999, issued to him. Thereafter, an office memo was issued on 20/22nd January, 2000, by which the petitioner was asked to give reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 31st January, 2000. According to the petitioner, no action was taken against him pursuant to the aforesaid office memo. However, after about 5 months, the petitioner was given another office memo dated 7/8th June, 2000, in which certain charges were levelled. He was asked to submit his reply. The petitioner, vide application dated 19th June, 2000, prayed for two weeks time for submitting his reply and he submitted his reply on 19th July, 2000. It is alleged by the petitioner that without holding any enquiry and without considering his reply, the Vice Chancellor, vide order dated 23rd August, 2000, has removed the petitioner from service. The order dated 23rd August, 2000, is under challenge before this Court in the aforementioned writ petition."

4. Vide order dated 29th September, 2000, this Court had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 23rd August, 2000 and observed that the petitioner shall be continued in service and shall be paid his salary. When the order dated 29th September, 2000, was served by the petitioner on the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University, which they did not comply, thus, forcing the petitioner to file Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 659 of 2001 in which notices were issued to Dr. Y. C. Simhadri on 24th March, 2003. According to the petitioner, when the Vice Chancello