<?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>1976 (11) TMI 197 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174415</link>
    <description>Valid delegation of appointing power to the Deputy Commissioner meant dismissal by that same authority did not violate the proviso barring dismissal by a subordinate authority. A disciplinary order concurring with the inquiry report was not vitiated merely because it did not record separate detailed reasons or findings, since such reasons are principally required where the authority disagrees with the inquiry report. Allegations of mala fides had to be supported by specific particulars establishing at least a prima facie case; in their absence, summary dismissal of the writ petition was justified. The dismissal from service was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:34:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 197 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174415</link>
      <description>Valid delegation of appointing power to the Deputy Commissioner meant dismissal by that same authority did not violate the proviso barring dismissal by a subordinate authority. A disciplinary order concurring with the inquiry report was not vitiated merely because it did not record separate detailed reasons or findings, since such reasons are principally required where the authority disagrees with the inquiry report. Allegations of mala fides had to be supported by specific particulars establishing at least a prima facie case; in their absence, summary dismissal of the writ petition was justified. The dismissal from service was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>