<?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>1966 (1) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174717</link>
    <description>A dismissal from public service does not take effect merely on signing; it becomes operative only when communicated or otherwise published to the employee, because a secret order cannot terminate service and the authority may still modify it before communication. A civil suit challenging dismissal for breach of mandatory service safeguards was held maintainable where the governing law preserved the right to sue and be sued. The disciplinary process was found defective for faulty charges, an unfair questionnaire, non-supply of the enquiry report, and denial of an effective chance to answer the material used against the employee, so the reasonable opportunity requirement was not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (1) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174717</link>
      <description>A dismissal from public service does not take effect merely on signing; it becomes operative only when communicated or otherwise published to the employee, because a secret order cannot terminate service and the authority may still modify it before communication. A civil suit challenging dismissal for breach of mandatory service safeguards was held maintainable where the governing law preserved the right to sue and be sued. The disciplinary process was found defective for faulty charges, an unfair questionnaire, non-supply of the enquiry report, and denial of an effective chance to answer the material used against the employee, so the reasonable opportunity requirement was not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>