Setting aside the dismissal order Justice Mathur observed,``The act is so outrageous that it amounts to excessive use of power amounting to illegal, irrational and malafide exercise of power.'' Vora's tenure be treated as unbroken ``as if the notification dated November 9, 1998, has never been issued at all'', the court directed. The court also directed the State government to pay Rs 10,000 as cost of the petition.

Vora was dismissed on the ground that he attended a conference of the International Association of Universities at Bangkok during November 12-14, 1997, without prior approval of the Chancellor (Governor), and that he did not obtain political clearance from the Government of India.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel A H Mehta submitted that the vice-chancellor was appointed for a three-year-term, which cannot be curtailed by the State government using provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act. Also, facts showed that there was an implied permission to the petitioner to attend the conference, it was submitted.

Regarding political clearance, Mehta submitted that it was not required for a vice-chancellor, and even if it was required, the petitioner was chosen for victimisation. Besides, even if there was any lapse on the part of Vora, it was simply a procedural lapse. Since some of the instances of misconduct stated in the State government's reply are not there is the show-cause notice, the dismissal in illegal, it was submitted.

However, advocate general J M Thakore submitted that the State government has ample power under section 16 of the General Clauses Act to dismiss a vice-chancellor. Also, it was submitted that a person holding the high office of a vice-chancellor was expected act in a disciplined manner.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment which laid down that the chancellor can dismiss a vice-chancellor only after holding an inquiry, the court observed that Vora was issued two notices, but no inquiry was conducted. ``The order of dismissal, being not preceded by inquiry of whatsoever nature, is ex-facie illegal, void and non-est,'' the court observed.

On the vagueness of the charge of political clearance, the court observed that neither the State government nor the chancellor know the exact contents of the document needed for such a clearance. Taking note that there was no mention of the document needed for the so-called political clearance in the State government reply, the court observed that this ``speaks volume'' about how casually a matter of dismissing a dignitary of a vice-chancellor's status has been taken by the State government and chancellor.

On the allegation of misconduct, the court observed that a mere error of judgment in performing duty does not amount to misconduct. After informing the chancellor but without waiting for approval, if the petitioner left for attending the conference, then it cannot be construed ``even as negligence or carelessness''. ``Such a bonafide error cannot be construed as misconduct.''

Meanwhile, the State government has decided to challenge this order and is likely to file a letters patent appeal (LPA) on Thursday before a division bench.