<?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>1979 (7) TMI 251 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287236</link>
    <description>The appellant, a Train Lighting Inspector, was removed from service by the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer. The Court determined that the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer was subordinate to the Chief Electrical Engineer who appointed the appellant. The removal by the subordinate authority was found to be unconstitutional under Article 311(1). The Court allowed the appeal, declared the removal order ineffective, and directed the appellant to be considered in service until proper government action is taken. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, emphasizing the significance of hierarchical authority in civil service appointments and removals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2020 13:41:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 251 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287236</link>
      <description>The appellant, a Train Lighting Inspector, was removed from service by the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer. The Court determined that the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer was subordinate to the Chief Electrical Engineer who appointed the appellant. The removal by the subordinate authority was found to be unconstitutional under Article 311(1). The Court allowed the appeal, declared the removal order ineffective, and directed the appellant to be considered in service until proper government action is taken. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, emphasizing the significance of hierarchical authority in civil service appointments and removals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>