<?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>2001 (8) TMI 774 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100402</link>
    <description>In disciplinary proceedings, a delinquent employee is entitled to copies of pre-recorded statements of enlisted witnesses when those statements are necessary to prepare the defence. The disciplinary rules contemplated supply of such statements before examination of prosecution witnesses, and natural justice required disclosure where withholding would prejudice the employee. The department could not refuse disclosure merely because it did not propose to rely on the statements, and no legally permissible ground such as public interest or security was shown to justify non-supply. The employee was therefore entitled to the statements on request before the enquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:09:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 774 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100402</link>
      <description>In disciplinary proceedings, a delinquent employee is entitled to copies of pre-recorded statements of enlisted witnesses when those statements are necessary to prepare the defence. The disciplinary rules contemplated supply of such statements before examination of prosecution witnesses, and natural justice required disclosure where withholding would prejudice the employee. The department could not refuse disclosure merely because it did not propose to rely on the statements, and no legally permissible ground such as public interest or security was shown to justify non-supply. The employee was therefore entitled to the statements on request before the enquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>