Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for University.

2. Petitioner, a Health Officer and working at Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as “BHU”) has received a punishment order dated 20/22.3.2007 passed by Vice Chancellor (hereinafter referred to as “VC”) of BHU imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by four stages till retirement i.e. 30.4.2007 with cumulative effect, under Rule 11 (v) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1965”) and has challenged this order by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

3. Facts in brief are that petitioner was placed under suspension by VC, BHU vide order dated 5.3.2001 in a pending disciplinary proceeding. A charge-sheet dated 22.11.2001 was served upon petitioner, containing 18 charges, basically alleging violation/contravention of Rule 2.1 (a) (b) (c) of Ordinances governing terms and condition of employees, other than teachers of BHU.

4. By order dated 4.7.2005 VC, BHU appointed one Dr. S.P. Mathur, Deputy Registrar (Examinations) as Presenting Officer, under Rule 14 (5) (c) of Rules 1965, for the purpose of proving charges against petitioner before inquiry officer.

5. Petitioner raised an objection about applicability of Rules 1965, vide letter dated 5.11.2005. BHU vide latter dated 10.11.2005 informed petitioner that as per resolution of Executive Council, BHU, terms and conditions of service as applicable to corresponding Government of India’s employees had been made applicable to the employees of BHU. Petitioner was advised to participate in disciplinary proceeding.

6. Oral inquiry was conducted by Sri B. Das Gupta, retired Joint Secretary/Chief Vigilance Officer of M/s Steel and Mines, Government of India. He submitted report dated 17.10.2016. He held charges No. 1 to 17, proved and charge No. 18 proved to the extent of allegation of misbehavior towards seniors and showing insubordination, but allegation regarding financial irregularities was not proved.

7. A show-cause notice was issued to petitioner, supplying copy of inquiry report, giving him opportunity to make representation in respect of findings of inquiry officer. Consequently petitioner submitted reply dated 30.11.2006. Thereafter, VC, BHU passed punishment order dated 20/22.3.2007, which has been challenged in this writ petition.

8. The grounds of challenge included, inter alia, as under :

(a) Punishment could have been imposed by Executive Council. Vice Chancellor has no authority. There was no emergency and, therefore, Section 7-C(v) of BHU Act 1915 is not attracted.

(b) Punishment order is contrary to Statutes-32 (1) of the Statutes of BHU.

(c) Appointing Authority of petitioner is Executive Council, hence punishment imposed by an authority other than appointing authority is without jurisdiction.

9. Petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit giving details of his appointment. Executive Counsel in its meeting dated 15.6.1980 resolved to appoint petitioner as Health Officer, Notified Area Committee of BHU and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The aforesaid decision and appointment was communicated to petitioner by Deputy Registrar (Administration), BHU vide letter dated 16/17.6.1980. The appointment letter also shows that terms and conditions of petitioner shall be such as are covered by BHU Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations applicable from time to time.

10. A charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on 22.11.2001 under Clause 23.2 of Ordinances governing terms and conditions of non teaching staff of University. Petitioner raised an objection vide letter dated 25.1.2002 that Executive Council is only competent authority who can initiate proceedings against petitioner or by any authority empowered by Executive Council. E