<?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>1973 (9) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181799</link>
    <description>A disciplinary enquiry is invalid where the inquiring officer&#039;s conduct and surrounding circumstances create a real likelihood of bias, even without proof of actual prejudice. The enquiry also fails if the officer lacks authority under the governing order and rule to continue or complete the proceedings, and later authorisation cannot retrospectively cure the defect. Fair procedure further requires access to relevant relied-upon material; refusal to inspect earlier proceedings used to support the charge denied the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. On these grounds, the compulsory retirement and the disciplinary outcome could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (9) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181799</link>
      <description>A disciplinary enquiry is invalid where the inquiring officer&#039;s conduct and surrounding circumstances create a real likelihood of bias, even without proof of actual prejudice. The enquiry also fails if the officer lacks authority under the governing order and rule to continue or complete the proceedings, and later authorisation cannot retrospectively cure the defect. Fair procedure further requires access to relevant relied-upon material; refusal to inspect earlier proceedings used to support the charge denied the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. On these grounds, the compulsory retirement and the disciplinary outcome could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>