M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK versus AJIT SINGH NANDAL AND ANR.

M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK versus AJIT SINGH NANDAL AND ANR.

Since no inquiry in compliance with Clause 2(8) of Part II of the Rules was held, the imposition of major penalty (removal from service by declaring post vacant) could not be sustained.

Parties
Appellant: M.D. University, Rohtak; Respondent: Ajit Singh Nandal; Plaintiff: Ajit Singh Nandal; Defendant: M.D. University, Rohtak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employee Removal, Major Penalty, University Employment, Mandatory Injunction
Service Law Employee Removal Major Penalty University Employment Mandatory Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.D. University, Rohtak

Appellant

Ajit Singh Nandal

Respondent

Ajit Singh Nandal

Plaintiff

M.D. University, Rohtak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether declaration of post as vacant amounted to removal from service
  2. 2 Whether removal without inquiry contravened applicable rules
  3. 3 Whether imposition of major penalty could be sustained without inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

Since no inquiry in compliance with Clause 2(8) of Part II of the Rules was held, the imposition of major penalty (removal from service by declaring post vacant) could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of High Court affirmed