petitioner which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. In support of his contention learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the impugned office memo dated 14.02.2019. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Rule 28(8a) of the Management Rules Part III i.e. the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. It is contended that in the aforesaid impugned memo dated 14.02.2019, the respondent no.3 relied upon memo no.74-MN dated 14.10.2018, as issued by respondent no.5/authority wherefrom it reveals that respondent no.5 himself was not sure as to whether the transfer certificate as submitted by the petitioner is fake or genuine. It is contended further that in view of Rule 28(8)(a) of the aforesaid Rules, no punishment can be imposed by the respondent no.3/authority without initiating and concluding a disciplinary proceeding. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner thus requests this Court to quash the impugned office memo dated 14.02.2019, as issued by the respondent no.3/authority with a further request to ask the respondent to release all dues of the petitioner.
