<?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>2015 (2) TMI 953 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256953</link>
    <description>A disciplinary authority cannot discard an exonerating inquiry report and direct a fresh inquiry merely because it disagrees with the findings; a further inquiry is justified only where there is a legally sustainable defect such as a serious procedural irregularity or absence of a proper inquiry, and the fresh inquiry order was therefore unsustainable. The conduct rules also did not apply to penalise an officer for participating in a public interest writ petition and filing an affidavit alleging maladministration, because that conduct did not amount to prohibited criticism, improper vindication of official acts, or giving evidence in the sense covered by the rules, and the charges could not support disciplinary action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 953 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256953</link>
      <description>A disciplinary authority cannot discard an exonerating inquiry report and direct a fresh inquiry merely because it disagrees with the findings; a further inquiry is justified only where there is a legally sustainable defect such as a serious procedural irregularity or absence of a proper inquiry, and the fresh inquiry order was therefore unsustainable. The conduct rules also did not apply to penalise an officer for participating in a public interest writ petition and filing an affidavit alleging maladministration, because that conduct did not amount to prohibited criticism, improper vindication of official acts, or giving evidence in the sense covered by the rules, and the charges could not support disciplinary action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>