https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291990 An order removing an employee from service was treated as a punitive disciplinary action, not a mere contractual termination, because it was expressly framed as a penalty under the service rules and carried consequences consistent with misconduct-based removal. The disciplinary framework required the reasonable opportunity protection under Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the employee's lack of a final opportunity to respond rendered the removal illegal and ineffective. A notice under Section 80 CPC was not invalid merely because its wording differed from the plaint, since both substantively challenged the removal and sought reinstatement with consequential relief. The employee's challenge therefore succeeded and the decree was upheld with costs. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:08:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291990 An order removing an employee from service was treated as a punitive disciplinary action, not a mere contractual termination, because it was expressly framed as a penalty under the service rules and carried consequences consistent with misconduct-based removal. The disciplinary framework required the reasonable opportunity protection under Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the employee's lack of a final opportunity to respond rendered the removal illegal and ineffective. A notice under Section 80 CPC was not invalid merely because its wording differed from the plaint, since both substantively challenged the removal and sought reinstatement with consequential relief. The employee's challenge therefore succeeded and the decree was upheld with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291990