<?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>1969 (3) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173924</link>
    <description>An express contractual power to terminate employment without assigning reasons, on notice or salary in lieu of notice, was treated as a valid discharge clause rather than a punitive dismissal, because no finding of misconduct formed the basis of the removal. The absence of a prior notice or domestic inquiry therefore did not invalidate the termination on natural justice grounds. The text also notes that where a statutory appeal lies and is decided by the State Government, the appellate order becomes the operative order for writ review, and the High Court may interfere only for jurisdictional error, apparent legal error, or similar infirmity, not by reappreciating evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (3) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173924</link>
      <description>An express contractual power to terminate employment without assigning reasons, on notice or salary in lieu of notice, was treated as a valid discharge clause rather than a punitive dismissal, because no finding of misconduct formed the basis of the removal. The absence of a prior notice or domestic inquiry therefore did not invalidate the termination on natural justice grounds. The text also notes that where a statutory appeal lies and is decided by the State Government, the appellate order becomes the operative order for writ review, and the High Court may interfere only for jurisdictional error, apparent legal error, or similar infirmity, not by reappreciating evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>