<?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>2007 (2) TMI 642 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174132</link>
    <description>Grant of bail is a judicial function assessed on the materials before the court, and a merely erroneous bail order does not justify disciplinary action against a subordinate judicial officer absent material showing mala fides, corrupt motive, recklessness, or lack of integrity. On the facts described, the allegation of illegal gratification was unproved and the order was supported by relevant circumstances, so adverse disciplinary findings could not stand. The Court also stressed that punishment must match the proved lapse; reversion and withholding of increments were excessive where the confidential record did not cast doubt on integrity. The adverse orders were set aside, with restoration to the District Judge cadre and monetary benefits, and fresh consideration of punishment was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 642 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174132</link>
      <description>Grant of bail is a judicial function assessed on the materials before the court, and a merely erroneous bail order does not justify disciplinary action against a subordinate judicial officer absent material showing mala fides, corrupt motive, recklessness, or lack of integrity. On the facts described, the allegation of illegal gratification was unproved and the order was supported by relevant circumstances, so adverse disciplinary findings could not stand. The Court also stressed that punishment must match the proved lapse; reversion and withholding of increments were excessive where the confidential record did not cast doubt on integrity. The adverse orders were set aside, with restoration to the District Judge cadre and monetary benefits, and fresh consideration of punishment was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>