<?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>1995 (11) TMI 379 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127634</link>
    <description>Non-supply of the inquiry report did not invalidate the dismissal because the governing Constitution Bench ruling applied prospectively and the order pre-dated it. Delay in starting disciplinary proceedings was not fatal in cases involving concealed disproportionate assets, since investigation may take time and delay alone does not vitiate action. Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, without satisfactory explanation, constituted misconduct, and judicial review was confined to legality, natural justice and some evidence; the Tribunal could not reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The Tribunal was also not justified in reducing the penalty, as punishment can be interfered with only if shockingly disproportionate. Dismissal was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 379 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127634</link>
      <description>Non-supply of the inquiry report did not invalidate the dismissal because the governing Constitution Bench ruling applied prospectively and the order pre-dated it. Delay in starting disciplinary proceedings was not fatal in cases involving concealed disproportionate assets, since investigation may take time and delay alone does not vitiate action. Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, without satisfactory explanation, constituted misconduct, and judicial review was confined to legality, natural justice and some evidence; the Tribunal could not reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The Tribunal was also not justified in reducing the penalty, as punishment can be interfered with only if shockingly disproportionate. Dismissal was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>