##PAGE1##

[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

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 10:11:00 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:34:25 AM)

[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

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 10:11:00 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:34:25 AM)

[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 an