Just a moment...
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%
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 an order of dismissal affecting the employee's rights became effective only on communication or service, and whether the Corporation's resolution reinstating the employee was valid.
Analysis: An order which affects the rights of a person is not complete and effective until it is brought to that person's notice, subject to recognised exceptions such as presence at the pronouncement, prescribed notice, obstruction by the affected person, or inability to serve despite reasonable efforts. A dismissal from employment falls within this rule because the employment relationship cannot be brought to an end unilaterally without knowledge of the other side. On the facts, the dismissal order was made earlier but served only later, and none of the exceptions applied. The effective dismissal therefore took place only on service, by which time the Corporation was competent to treat the matter as one of reinstatement, and the State Government could not annul that resolution on the footing that it was an invalid reappointment.
Conclusion: The dismissal became effective only when served, the reinstatement resolution was valid, and the Government's annulment order was invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: An adverse order affecting civil rights does not become operative until it is communicated to the person affected, unless a recognised exception applies.