https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312539 Under State Bank of India service regulations, dismissal protection turned on Regulation 55, not Article 311(1), and the regulation barred dismissal only by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Because the relevant service rules had shifted appointing authority to the Chief General Manager by the time the dismissal orders were passed, that authority was competent and the challenge failed. The retrospective amendment to Regulation 55 was also valid: Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 authorised regulations with effect from an earlier date, and no vested right prevented retrospective alteration of service conditions. The principal jurisdictional challenge succeeded in the Bank's favour. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:40:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312539 Under State Bank of India service regulations, dismissal protection turned on Regulation 55, not Article 311(1), and the regulation barred dismissal only by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Because the relevant service rules had shifted appointing authority to the Chief General Manager by the time the dismissal orders were passed, that authority was competent and the challenge failed. The retrospective amendment to Regulation 55 was also valid: Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 authorised regulations with effect from an earlier date, and no vested right prevented retrospective alteration of service conditions. The principal jurisdictional challenge succeeded in the Bank's favour. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312539