<?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>1954 (1) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291989</link>
    <description>Article 311 protection extends to holders of civil posts, including temporary servants, when the Government imposes punitive dismissal for misconduct rather than simply terminating a contract appointment. In such cases, the employee must receive notice of the charges with sufficient particulars and an effective opportunity to defend himself. A confidential enquiry conducted in the employee&#039;s absence, without examination of witnesses in his presence or supply of the report, does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable opportunity. The text also notes that where multiple charges and proposed punishments are involved, the employee must be allowed to meet the proposed punishment. The dismissal was therefore invalid for non-compliance with Article 311.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:59:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (1) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291989</link>
      <description>Article 311 protection extends to holders of civil posts, including temporary servants, when the Government imposes punitive dismissal for misconduct rather than simply terminating a contract appointment. In such cases, the employee must receive notice of the charges with sufficient particulars and an effective opportunity to defend himself. A confidential enquiry conducted in the employee&#039;s absence, without examination of witnesses in his presence or supply of the report, does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable opportunity. The text also notes that where multiple charges and proposed punishments are involved, the employee must be allowed to meet the proposed punishment. The dismissal was therefore invalid for non-compliance with Article 311.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>