TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Vice-Chancellor had authority under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 to initiate and direct disciplinary proceedings terminating the respondent's service. (ii) Whether the Executive Council's later resolution could validly ratify the Vice-Chancellor's unauthorised action.
Issue (i): Whether the Vice-Chancellor had authority under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 to initiate and direct disciplinary proceedings terminating the respondent's service.
Analysis: The statutory scheme made the Executive Council the principal executive authority with power to appoint officers and, by necessary implication, to remove them. The Vice-Chancellor was the principal executive and academic officer and had express powers to regulate work and conduct, ensure observance of the Act and exercise emergency powers, but those provisions did not confer disciplinary power to remove an officer. The power to take disciplinary action was a distinct statutory power vested in the Executive Council, and such power could not be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor unless validly delegated in accordance with the Act.
Conclusion: The Vice-Chancellor had no independent authority to impose disciplinary termination on the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the Executive Council's later resolution could validly ratify the Vice-Chancellor's unauthorised action.
Analysis: Ratification may validate an unauthorised act in ordinary agency law, but that principle does not extend to the exercise of statutory power where the initial act is without authority and therefore void. The delegation resolution was itself ineffective because the statutory requirement of approval of the Chancellor was not shown to have been met. Since there was no valid prior delegation, the Vice-Chancellor's action remained unauthorised and its subsequent endorsement by the Executive Council could not cure the defect.
Conclusion: The subsequent ratification was ineffective and did not validate the dismissal.
Final Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings and dismissal were held unsustainable for want of statutory authority, and the respondent succeeded in resisting the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power must be exercised only by the authority on which it is conferred or by a valid delegate, and an act done without such authority is void and cannot be cured by later ratification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
