<?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>1977 (7) TMI 119 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313781</link>
    <description>A statutory requirement of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed removal under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was construed to include two stages: first, an opportunity to meet the charges during the enquiry, and second, a further opportunity after findings are recorded and before the proposed penalty is finalised. The safeguard was held to apply with the same legal content despite the office holder being a Pradhan rather than a Government servant, because the legislature used language already carrying a settled meaning. On the stated facts, the removal order was invalid for want of the second opportunity, and the order was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 10:50:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (7) TMI 119 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313781</link>
      <description>A statutory requirement of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed removal under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was construed to include two stages: first, an opportunity to meet the charges during the enquiry, and second, a further opportunity after findings are recorded and before the proposed penalty is finalised. The safeguard was held to apply with the same legal content despite the office holder being a Pradhan rather than a Government servant, because the legislature used language already carrying a settled meaning. On the stated facts, the removal order was invalid for want of the second opportunity, and the order was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>