<?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>2012 (1) TMI 255 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180687</link>
    <description>An employer may initiate disciplinary action for misconduct committed in an employee&#039;s earlier service with an affiliated cooperative society where that prior service has a sufficient nexus with the later appointment, including recruitment through a reserved quota. The absence of direct control at the time of the misconduct did not remove disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court also applied a prejudice-based natural justice test and held that non-supply of the enquiry report or omission of a second show-cause notice did not invalidate the dismissal unless actual prejudice was shown. The dismissal was therefore sustained and the High Court&#039;s interference was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:17:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 255 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180687</link>
      <description>An employer may initiate disciplinary action for misconduct committed in an employee&#039;s earlier service with an affiliated cooperative society where that prior service has a sufficient nexus with the later appointment, including recruitment through a reserved quota. The absence of direct control at the time of the misconduct did not remove disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court also applied a prejudice-based natural justice test and held that non-supply of the enquiry report or omission of a second show-cause notice did not invalidate the dismissal unless actual prejudice was shown. The dismissal was therefore sustained and the High Court&#039;s interference was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>