Legal Dictation 107 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement, 100 wpm legal dictation

Legal Dictation 107 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement, 100 wpm legal dictation
*The content provided is for educational and shorthand dictation purposes only
legal dictation 100 wpm
legal dictation 100 speed
legal dictation 80 wpm
legal dictation 90 speed
legal dictation 115 wpm
legal dictation 120 wpm
Allahabad High Court Judgement
Delhi High Court recruitment
Senior Personal Assistant
#ssc stenographer exam
#legal matters
#shorthand
#steno
#stenographer
#english
#dictation
#dictation80wpm
#englishdictation
#dictationforbeginners
#dictation_100wpm
telegram link:
The defence inter-alia of the writ petitioner-appellant was that he might have tabled a particular resolution before the Gram Panchayat, but then the resolution was taken by the entire Gram Panchayat as a whole and he had no specific role to play in the matter. There is no such allegation that the beneficiaries under such settlement as resorted to by the Gram Panchayat were his own kinsmen or his caste men or that the writ petitioner-appellant reaped any personal benefit out of such settlement effected by the Gram Panchayat.
The provisions under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 specifically postulates that the State Government may, by an order in writing and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, and making such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove any Sarpanch, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such or in the opinion of the State Government, has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct.
Admittedly, there was an enquiry against the writ petitioner-appellant, in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct and, as such, he has been removed. As the Statute has now been replaced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 38 becomes relevant for our purpose. Under the provisions of Section 38 also, the State Government may, by order in writing and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove from office any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such or is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct. It has been admitted by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State in this matter that there is no definition of 'disgraceful conduct' given in either of the Statutes.
In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mewa Lal Yadav reported in 1961 A.L.J. 120, as regards the expression 'flagrantly abused', which appeared in Section 40(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, it was observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that it required that even if there is no sinister or oblique motive there must be something to show that in committing the acts complained of the member concerned was using his position as a member for a wrong purpose or that he was taking some advantage of his position which ought not to have been taken and that he was doing so in a glaring and scandalous manner. 438 words