<?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>1984 (5) TMI 260 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168718</link>
    <description>A breach of house building or conveyance advance rules does not, by itself, amount to disciplinary misconduct unless the service rules expressly or by necessary implication treat it as such. The Court also held that punitive action in public employment must rest on reasoned findings; an inquiry report, disciplinary order, and appellate order unsupported by independent reasoning are arbitrary and liable to be quashed. On relief, reinstatement followed from the illegality of removal, but back wages were moderated because of alternative employment during part of the period and the employee&#039;s partial lapse in complying with the advance rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 260 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168718</link>
      <description>A breach of house building or conveyance advance rules does not, by itself, amount to disciplinary misconduct unless the service rules expressly or by necessary implication treat it as such. The Court also held that punitive action in public employment must rest on reasoned findings; an inquiry report, disciplinary order, and appellate order unsupported by independent reasoning are arbitrary and liable to be quashed. On relief, reinstatement followed from the illegality of removal, but back wages were moderated because of alternative employment during part of the period and the employee&#039;s partial lapse in complying with the advance rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>