ORDER M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 23.7.2002 Annexure-27 to the writ petition. This order was passed in pursuance of the directive of the Chancellor dated 10.8.2001, Annexure-25 to the writ petition.
3. The petitioner is the Committee of Management of a Post Graduate College. The respondent No. 3 was a permanent Principal on probation in the said institution. The Committee of Management found his work unsatisfactory and passed a resolution for terminating his service but the Vice-Chancellor disapproved it on 15.11.2000. Against the order of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner went in appeal under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act to the Chancellor. The Chancellor remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor, who again disapproved the termination vide order dated 23.7.2002.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Vice-Chancellor has only recorded conclusions and not the reasons. In the impugned order dated 23.7.2002, it is mentioned that the allegations against R.P. Yadav are baseless, but no reasons have been given as to why it has been held that they are baseless. The Chancellor while remanding the matter had stated that the matter should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order. It is well-settled that there is a difference between reason and conclusion. In his order, the Vice-Chancellor has only recorded the conclusion but without recording reasons. In Union of India v. M.L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 (paras 27 and 28), the Supreme Court held that reasons are different from conclusions. This view was followed by our Court in Committee of Management S.T.K.B.I. College, Maunath Bhanjan, District Azamgarh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1985 (1) UPLBEC 530.
5. Hence, we set aside the impugned order dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) of the Vice-Chancellor and remand the matter to the Vice-Chancellor to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 3 and recording reasons in his order. The Vice-Chancellor shall pass the order preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
6. The petition is disposed of.