Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Excise Commissioner was competent to order the appellant's compulsory retirement after the appellant had been held to have a substantive right to continue in the Excise Department and his lien in the Police Department had ceased.
Analysis: Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was relied upon to contend that the lien of a Government servant appointed substantively outside his cadre should remain suspended for his benefit. The Court held that the rule is intended to protect a Government servant who wishes to return to his parent department and cannot be invoked by one who resists repatriation and asserts a right to remain in the ex cadre post. Once the civil court had declared the appellant entitled to continue substantively as Excise Sub-Inspector, he could not claim to retain a lien in the Police Department. In service law, a Government servant cannot simultaneously hold two liens in two different cadres, and the lien in the parent department must be treated as cancelled in such circumstances. The competent authority to pass the retirement order was therefore the Excise Commissioner.
Conclusion: The challenge to the compulsory retirement order failed, and the authority of the Excise Commissioner was upheld.