https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171861 The Supreme Court held that Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules applied to the employees in question, necessitating a show cause notice and reply before deeming the post vacated. Rule 10(C)(ii) of the 1972 Rules did not apply as the absence did not exceed five years. While a notice violation occurred in one case, it did not prejudice the outcome as the employee was already aware of the situation. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed without costs. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:52:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171861 The Supreme Court held that Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules applied to the employees in question, necessitating a show cause notice and reply before deeming the post vacated. Rule 10(C)(ii) of the 1972 Rules did not apply as the absence did not exceed five years. While a notice violation occurred in one case, it did not prejudice the outcome as the employee was already aware of the situation. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171861