N.K. TANEJA Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeal @ SLP @ Diary No.7063/2021 Delay condoned.

(2.) Leave granted. Respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, though served, has not appeared. He is, thus, set ex parte. The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the University in terminating the services of respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, on the ground that he had abandoned his services, we feel that the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law; if necessary, after holding a disciplinary enquiry. The facts of the case are writ large and show that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, failed to report for duty and was travelling and moving around abroad. Even today, he has not appeared before this Court, despite service of notice. Later on, he pursued contempt proceedings before the High Court, on account of non-compliance with its order. During the course of the hearing, it was stated that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, has been paid his dues under the Contributory Provident Fund(For short, "CPF.") Scheme, including the share of the University.