<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1958 (12) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166245</link>
    <description>Article 392 was held broad enough to permit adaptation of Article 312 by modification, addition or omission to remove transitional difficulty, so deleting the Council of States resolution requirement did not invalidate the scheme for all-India services or the All-India Services Act, 1951. The Act&#039;s delegation to the Central Government to frame service rules was also upheld because the statute laid down the policy, adopted existing rules as the operative framework, and retained parliamentary supervision through consultation and laying provisions. The Punjab Government was the proper authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer serving under its affairs, with final punishment to involve the Central Government only where major penalties were proposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (12) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166245</link>
      <description>Article 392 was held broad enough to permit adaptation of Article 312 by modification, addition or omission to remove transitional difficulty, so deleting the Council of States resolution requirement did not invalidate the scheme for all-India services or the All-India Services Act, 1951. The Act&#039;s delegation to the Central Government to frame service rules was also upheld because the statute laid down the policy, adopted existing rules as the operative framework, and retained parliamentary supervision through consultation and laying provisions. The Punjab Government was the proper authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer serving under its affairs, with final punishment to involve the Central Government only where major penalties were proposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>