<?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>1983 (10) TMI 232 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156503</link>
    <description>Natural justice in domestic disciplinary enquiries is flexible and cross-examination is not mandatory in every case; it becomes necessary only where facts are disputed or witness credibility is material, and the employee must show real prejudice from any denial. The note also explains that Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Officers &amp; Assistants) Service Rules requires communication of charges, consideration of the employee&#039;s explanation, and a further opportunity before a major penalty, and that substantial compliance may suffice where these steps are followed. On the facts described, the dismissal was treated as sustainable because the employee knew the material, responded to it, did not seek cross-examination, and no fatal procedural illegality was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 232 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156503</link>
      <description>Natural justice in domestic disciplinary enquiries is flexible and cross-examination is not mandatory in every case; it becomes necessary only where facts are disputed or witness credibility is material, and the employee must show real prejudice from any denial. The note also explains that Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Officers &amp; Assistants) Service Rules requires communication of charges, consideration of the employee&#039;s explanation, and a further opportunity before a major penalty, and that substantial compliance may suffice where these steps are followed. On the facts described, the dismissal was treated as sustainable because the employee knew the material, responded to it, did not seek cross-examination, and no fatal procedural illegality was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>