https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299951 The amendment to the disciplinary service rules was treated as effective from the date approved by circulation under the Companies Act, because the governing rule required the amendment to operate from the date stated in it and that requirement was met. The Court also held that, even if the dismissal order was initially unauthorized, a competent authority could ratify it and the ratification would relate back to validate the original act. The employee was not deprived of appellate remedy, as an appeal was filed and decided by the Board. The dismissal order was therefore not invalid for want of authority, and the High Court erred in setting it aside on that preliminary ground. en-us Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299951 The amendment to the disciplinary service rules was treated as effective from the date approved by circulation under the Companies Act, because the governing rule required the amendment to operate from the date stated in it and that requirement was met. The Court also held that, even if the dismissal order was initially unauthorized, a competent authority could ratify it and the ratification would relate back to validate the original act. The employee was not deprived of appellate remedy, as an appeal was filed and decided by the Board. The dismissal order was therefore not invalid for want of authority, and the High Court erred in setting it aside on that preliminary ground. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299951