https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171618 In a domestic disciplinary inquiry, the Court held that the University rule allowing the Principal to designate the inquiry officer was only a procedural guide and not a mandatory legal requirement, so the Vice-Chancellor's appointment of an independent retired Principal did not vitiate the proceedings. It further held that non-supply of the inquiry report before seeking the appellant's explanation did not breach natural justice where the appellant had notice of the charge, participated in the inquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and led rebuttal evidence, and no rule required prior disclosure of the report. The disciplinary order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 15 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:26:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171618 In a domestic disciplinary inquiry, the Court held that the University rule allowing the Principal to designate the inquiry officer was only a procedural guide and not a mandatory legal requirement, so the Vice-Chancellor's appointment of an independent retired Principal did not vitiate the proceedings. It further held that non-supply of the inquiry report before seeking the appellant's explanation did not breach natural justice where the appellant had notice of the charge, participated in the inquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and led rebuttal evidence, and no rule required prior disclosure of the report. The disciplinary order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171618