[2026:RJ-JP:4189] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2942/2004 Mangal Singh Rajput S/o Shri Devraj Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o 113, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The University of Rajasthan through its Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Ankit Yadav, Mr. Mahendra Verma & Mr. Ramkishan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritik Yadav on behalf of Dr. R.K. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity & propriety of order dated 12.03.2004 issued by the Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated in exercise of Ordinance 384 of University of Rajasthan Ordinances (for short, 'University Ordinance'). 2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) with University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in the year 1973. However, alleging the charge of wilful absence, one charge-sheet dated 11.09.2000 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the charge-sheet by way of filing reply on 14.05.2003. Thereafter, regular enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (2 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] the University Ordinance was conducted against the petitioner and vide order dated 05.12.2003, penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he filed representation to challenge the penalty order dated 05.12.2003, which was pending at the relevant time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of ailing health, the petitioner applied for medical leave on 16.12.2003 and got his treatment at Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur. Thereafter, he submitted applications dated 22.12.2003, 26.12.2003, 29.12.2003 & 09.01.2004 for extension of medical leave. However, no order whatsoever was passed by the respondents over the leave applications submitted by the petitioner. Instead thereof, one notice dated 29.01.2004 was issued by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, requiring the petitioner to join duties failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him under Ordinance 357-C of the University Ordinance. Since, the petitioner was not keeping good health, he could not join. Thereafter, the Registrar published one notice dated 27.02.2004 in the daily newspaper which was in continuation of earlier notice dated 29.01.2004 and which states that neither the petitioner received notices dated 29.01.2004, nor did he submit any explanation, nor joined the duties. Therefore, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to resume the duties along with explanation, failing which proceedings under Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance shall be undertaken against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said paper publication was not brought in the knowledge of [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (3 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] the petitioner and he could not join the services pursuant to such notice published in newspaper dated 27.02.2004. Thereafter, in quite abrupt and surprising manner, one order dated 12.03.2004 was issued by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby without conducting any enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance petitioner's services were terminated pursuant to order dated 10.03.2004 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that thus the order dated 12.03.2004, terminating the services of a substantive employee without following the due process of enquiry and ignoring the leave applications of the petitioner is quite arbitrary and illegal and also shows high handedness of the respondents. He further submits that although respondents have got power to enforce discipline in the service and for which the power is also conferred upon them to penalize any employee, in case, misconduct is proved against him, yet such power cannot be exercised in unbridled and unfettered manner ignoring the procedure of enquiry contemplated under Ordinance 357-C of the University Ordinance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the earlier order dated 05.12.2003, where in the similar circumstances levelling the allegation of wilful absence, full fledged enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance was conducted by the respondents; however, no cogent reason has been given by the respondents for dispensing with the regular enquiry and for invoking Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance in order to [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (4 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] terminate the services of the petitioner without conducting the enquiry. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even the notice dated 29.01.2004 sent by Registrar of University would reveal that the petitioner was asked to resume duties failing which disciplinary action under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance was to be undertaken against him. He submits that although notice published in newspaper dated 27.02.2004 was not within his knowledge, yet bare perusal of the same would also make it clear that notice dated 27.02.2004 was in continuation of earlier notice dated 29.01.2004, where the respondents proposed to conduct enquiry, in case, the petitioner did not join despite service of notice. However, while following the earlier notice dated 29.01.2004, abruptly a notice under Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance was given by the Registrar of University without there being giving any authority of law and without examining the fact that Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance was not applicable in the instant case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing has been mentioned in order dated 12.03.2004 for reflecting any application of mind by the Competent Authority for dispensing with the regular enquiry and no plausible cause has been shown for invoking Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance, instead of conducting regular enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that thus, in quite slipshod manner and without following the due procedure as contemplated under Ordinance 357-C of University [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (5 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] Ordinance, services of 30 years rendered by the petitioner have been put to ashes by respondents in quite malicious manner just to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner relating to fruits of his long service of 30 years in the form of pension and retiral benefits. In conclusion, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the termination order dated 12.03.2004 and to grant him all the consequential benefits for the reason that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had already attained age of superannuation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner has been a regular absentee and earlier also while taking disciplinary action against the petitioner for similar misconduct under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance, a warning was given to the petitioner to improve his conduct and to remain in discipline. He also submits that Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance confers special power upon the appointing authority to terminate services of an employee, who has become unfit to hold the post. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance starts with negative covenant and thus, has got supremacy over any other provision in this regard as prescribed in this Ordinance. He also submits that although initial notice dated 29.01.2004 was given by the University to the petitioner for resuming duties failing which disciplinary enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance was to be conducted, yet when the petitioner did not comply with, it was decided by the University to invoke the provisions of Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance looking to the [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (6 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] fact that undeterred by earlier punishment, the petitioner continued to commit misconduct of the similar nature. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. As the dispute involved in the present writ petition revolves around applicability of Ordinance 357-C or Ordinance 384 of the University Ordinance, therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce such Ordinance hereunder: "O.357-C. 1. The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf may place any employee under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where, a case against him in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation/enquiry or trial; provided that where an order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith. report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made; or (c) A University employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders; or (d) Where the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for an employee to be placed under suspension. A University employee under suspension shall be entitled to the following payment, viz :–. (1) Subsistance allowance: An amount equal to the leave salary which the University servant would have drawn if he had been granted leave on half pay and, in addition, D.A. based on such leave salary; provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistance allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as follows:– (i) the amount of subsistance allowance may be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistance allowance admissible during the period of the first six months if, in the opinion of the said authority, [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (7 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons (to be recorded in writing) not directly attributable to the University servant: (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons (to be recorded in writing) directly attributable to the University servant; (iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistance allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. (2) Any other compensatory allowance which the employee was drawing on the date of suspension provided that the employee satisfies the authority competent to suspend him that he continues. to meet the expenditure for which such compensatory allowance was granted. Note:– No payment under this clause shall be made unless the University employee furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business profession or vocation. (3) The following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons which shall be recorded, be imposed on a University employee: (a) Minor penalties: (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion for a period to be specified in the order. (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the University by his negligence, breach of any law, rule or order. (b) Major penalties: (i) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower timescale or to a lower stage in the timescale; (ii) Compulsory retirement. (iii) Removal from service. (iv) Dismissal from service. The Vice-Chancellor or any other authority empowered by him in this behalf may impose any of the penalties specified above on any employee, after conducting such enquiry as may be necessary in individual cases. Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in para 3 above: (i) Where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charge involving moral turpitude; (ii) Where the compent authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable-to hold an enquiry; The compentent authority may consider the circumstances of the case without holding an enquiry and pass such orders as it deems fit. [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (8 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] If any question arises whether if is reasonably practicably to hold an enquiry the decision thereon of the Authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be final, subject to only one appeal to the next higher authority. O.384. Nothing in these Ordinances shall prevent the termination by the University of the services of a University employee at any time without notice in the event of misconduct on his part or of any breach by him of any of the conditions of his service which in the opinion of the authority competent to make a substantive appointment to the post makes him unfit to hold the post. This power shall be exercised by such authority after proper investigation and giving an opportunity to the person concerned to show cause why his services should not be terminated." 14. It has not been disputed by the parties that prior to issuance of order dated 12.03.2004 no regular disciplinary enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the University and services of the petitioner have been terminated by following a summary procedure under Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1973 and completed 30 years of service with the University and was substantive employee holding lien in the University services. 15. Earlier when the petitioner remained absent from 15.05.2000 to 12.07.2000, he was subjected to departmental enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance and was saddled with penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect. No justified reason has been placed on record by the respondents for not adopting the similar procedure of conducting enquiry at the later stage when the petitioner again remained absent in the year 2003. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the application for grant of medical leave followed by extension applications were submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time. Bonafides of such reasons [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (9 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] mentioned in the applications could be examined by the Competent Authority only during enquiry and not otherwise. 16. So far as contention of learned counsel for the respondents that Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance has supremacy over any other provision in the University Ordinance, it is sufficient to observe that Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance can be exercised in rare circumstances and not in routine manner and such provisions under Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance would not make the provision with regard to regular enquiry under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance as redundant and otiose. 17. Even otherwise bare perusal of the Ordinance 357-C shows that it is quite exhaustive provision and provides for detailed procedure for awarding minor as well as major penalties. Proviso attached to Ordinance 357-C.1.(3) would also make it clear that the Competent Authority may order for dispensing with regular enquiry only in the circumstances mentioned in proviso (i) & (ii) which provides for the contingency, where the employee was convicted on criminal charge involving moral turpitude or where the Competent Authority is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Neither in the order dated 12.03.2004, nor in reply to the writ petition, nor in any other document, learned counsel for the respondents could point out any such reason recorded in writing for dispensing with the enquiry. Thus, it is cleat that for no cogent and good reasons, in quite whimsical and arbitrary manner, without recording any reasons in writing for dispensing with enquiry in accordance proviso to Ordinance 357-C.1.(3), respondents have arbitrarily opted to pass order of termination [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (10 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] under Ordinance 384 which is without authority of law and cannot be sustained in view of specific provisions mentioned in University Ordinance. 18. It is a settled proposition that howsoever heinous may be the misconduct of the employee, yet the minimum right provided to him under the Ordinance is to put forward his defence in regular departmental enquiry. In the instant case, no such opportunity whatsoever was granted by the respondents and the enquiry under Ordinance 357-C was never conducted before terminating the services of the petitioner. 19. It goes without saying that the order of termination is in the nature of penalty of dismissal/removal, where all the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been forfeited. Thus, while granting harshest penalty, the respondents cannot ignore the legal obligation to follow the procedure of enquiry as assigned under Ordinance 357-C of University Ordinance. 20. On meticulous examination of impugned order dated 12.03.2004, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever mentioned by the Competent Authority for dispensing with the regular enquiry and for adopting special procedure under Ordinance 384 of University Ordinance. 21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court finds that the order dated 12.03.2004 has been issued by the respondents in quite arbitrary and illegal manner and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including pension and other retiral benefits treating him to continue in respondents' services till his date of superannuation. [2026:RJ-JP:4189] (11 of 11) [CW-2942/2004] 22. As the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate rights on account of illegal action of respondent-University, hence for the delay, the respondents are solely responsible, therefore, the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment of pension etc. 23. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 24. Necessary exercise to be carried out within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/6