https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157799 The Supreme Court clarified that the authority competent to impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings need not be the same as the one initiating charges. The Court overturned the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal's decision, emphasizing flexibility in conducting enquiries and imposing penalties under Rule 3(b). Previous cases were cited to support this interpretation, highlighting that different authorities can handle various stages of disciplinary proceedings. The judgment stressed the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fairness and natural justice in administrative actions. The case was remitted for further consideration based on all arguments presented. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157799 The Supreme Court clarified that the authority competent to impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings need not be the same as the one initiating charges. The Court overturned the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal's decision, emphasizing flexibility in conducting enquiries and imposing penalties under Rule 3(b). Previous cases were cited to support this interpretation, highlighting that different authorities can handle various stages of disciplinary proceedings. The judgment stressed the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fairness and natural justice in administrative actions. The case was remitted for further consideration based on all arguments presented. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157799