<?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>1990 (8) TMI 390 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162056</link>
    <description>Departmental proceedings initiated while the employee was in service could validly continue after voluntary retirement under Rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, because such proceedings are deemed to continue to their logical conclusion and the President may act on the report. However, pension or gratuity can be withheld only where there is a recorded finding of grave misconduct or negligence satisfying the statutory precondition for Rule 9 action. On the facts, the inquiry did not clearly establish grave misconduct, and gratuity could not be forfeited without specific legal authority or notice. Permanent withholding of pension and the gratuity component were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 390 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162056</link>
      <description>Departmental proceedings initiated while the employee was in service could validly continue after voluntary retirement under Rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, because such proceedings are deemed to continue to their logical conclusion and the President may act on the report. However, pension or gratuity can be withheld only where there is a recorded finding of grave misconduct or negligence satisfying the statutory precondition for Rule 9 action. On the facts, the inquiry did not clearly establish grave misconduct, and gratuity could not be forfeited without specific legal authority or notice. Permanent withholding of pension and the gratuity component were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>