<?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>2013 (7) TMI 587 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235429</link>
    <description>The sealed cover procedure for promotion applies only when, on the relevant date, the employee is under suspension, a charge-sheet has been issued with disciplinary proceedings pending, or criminal prosecution is pending. Preliminary inquiry or unserved allegations do not amount to pending disciplinary action, and later-arising disabling circumstances matter only if they arise after DPC recommendations but before actual promotion. Where none of the prescribed conditions existed at the time batch promotions were considered, sealed cover treatment could not be used to deny promotion, and the employee remained entitled to consideration with consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 587 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235429</link>
      <description>The sealed cover procedure for promotion applies only when, on the relevant date, the employee is under suspension, a charge-sheet has been issued with disciplinary proceedings pending, or criminal prosecution is pending. Preliminary inquiry or unserved allegations do not amount to pending disciplinary action, and later-arising disabling circumstances matter only if they arise after DPC recommendations but before actual promotion. Where none of the prescribed conditions existed at the time batch promotions were considered, sealed cover treatment could not be used to deny promotion, and the employee remained entitled to consideration with consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>