<?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 (4) TMI 286 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173853</link>
    <description>Unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings can render the enquiry unfair and justify quashing of stale disciplinary action. The text also states that adverse ACR remarks and denial of promotion cannot rest on pending complaints or unfinalised disciplinary material; where no completed preliminary enquiry or final decision exists, such material should not be used to withhold selection grade promotion. A separate direction to consider promotion to the Super Time Scale was left undisturbed because no independent ground for interference was shown. The Tribunal&#039;s orders were therefore affirmed, and the respondent&#039;s challenge succeeded on all substantive issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:54:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 286 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173853</link>
      <description>Unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings can render the enquiry unfair and justify quashing of stale disciplinary action. The text also states that adverse ACR remarks and denial of promotion cannot rest on pending complaints or unfinalised disciplinary material; where no completed preliminary enquiry or final decision exists, such material should not be used to withhold selection grade promotion. A separate direction to consider promotion to the Super Time Scale was left undisturbed because no independent ground for interference was shown. The Tribunal&#039;s orders were therefore affirmed, and the respondent&#039;s challenge succeeded on all substantive issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>