<?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>1971 (4) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168364</link>
    <description>Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 does not permit a disciplinary authority to nullify completed inquiry reports simply because their findings are unfavourable and to initiate repeated de novo inquiries. If the inquiry is defective or material witnesses were omitted for sufficient reason, further evidence may be taken; otherwise, the recorded inquiry process must be respected. Repeated appointment of new inquiry officers after reports exonerating the employee was treated as an improper and harassing procedure. The resulting disciplinary action was held vitiated for breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168364</link>
      <description>Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 does not permit a disciplinary authority to nullify completed inquiry reports simply because their findings are unfavourable and to initiate repeated de novo inquiries. If the inquiry is defective or material witnesses were omitted for sufficient reason, further evidence may be taken; otherwise, the recorded inquiry process must be respected. Repeated appointment of new inquiry officers after reports exonerating the employee was treated as an improper and harassing procedure. The resulting disciplinary action was held vitiated for breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>