<?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>1963 (9) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180266</link>
    <description>The service rules were read as permitting revocation of leave, suspension, and retention in service pending a misconduct enquiry, even where the officer was on leave preparatory to retirement and the suspension order was communicated after superannuation. The governing retirement framework was treated as applicable, and suspension was held valid at the stage when misconduct was under enquiry, before formal charge-sheeting. The document also states the core principle that a statutory power is invalid if exercised for an alien purpose or with mala fide intent. On the facts discussed, the majority treated the orders as retaliatory and vindictive, while the dissent considered the rules sufficient and mala fides unproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:51:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (9) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180266</link>
      <description>The service rules were read as permitting revocation of leave, suspension, and retention in service pending a misconduct enquiry, even where the officer was on leave preparatory to retirement and the suspension order was communicated after superannuation. The governing retirement framework was treated as applicable, and suspension was held valid at the stage when misconduct was under enquiry, before formal charge-sheeting. The document also states the core principle that a statutory power is invalid if exercised for an alien purpose or with mala fide intent. On the facts discussed, the majority treated the orders as retaliatory and vindictive, while the dissent considered the rules sufficient and mala fides unproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>