https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151056 Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 did not require the employee to wait for the Presenting Officer's written brief; after evidence closed, the Inquiring Authority could either hear both sides or permit simultaneous written briefs by each side. The Court also held that no breach of natural justice was established because no actual prejudice was shown, and the appellate hearing afforded an opportunity to meet the case. The alleged procedural defect therefore did not invalidate the disciplinary action. The matter was remitted for limited reconsideration on the authenticity of the disputed documents and the effect of any expert report. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151056 Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 did not require the employee to wait for the Presenting Officer's written brief; after evidence closed, the Inquiring Authority could either hear both sides or permit simultaneous written briefs by each side. The Court also held that no breach of natural justice was established because no actual prejudice was shown, and the appellate hearing afforded an opportunity to meet the case. The alleged procedural defect therefore did not invalidate the disciplinary action. The matter was remitted for limited reconsideration on the authenticity of the disputed documents and the effect of any expert report. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151056