<?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>1997 (8) TMI 521 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182184</link>
    <description>Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 permits withholding or withdrawal of gratuity where pension can lawfully be withheld for grave misconduct or negligence, because Rule 3(1)(o) treats pension as including gratuity unless used in contradistinction to it. The Court also restated that punishment in disciplinary proceedings is not open to judicial reassessment merely because it appears harsh: review is confined to illegality, procedural impropriety, or Wednesbury irrationality. Proportionality may inform review, but interference lies only where the penalty is outrageous, shocks the conscience, or no sensible decision-maker could have imposed it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 521 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182184</link>
      <description>Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 permits withholding or withdrawal of gratuity where pension can lawfully be withheld for grave misconduct or negligence, because Rule 3(1)(o) treats pension as including gratuity unless used in contradistinction to it. The Court also restated that punishment in disciplinary proceedings is not open to judicial reassessment merely because it appears harsh: review is confined to illegality, procedural impropriety, or Wednesbury irrationality. Proportionality may inform review, but interference lies only where the penalty is outrageous, shocks the conscience, or no sensible decision-maker could have imposed it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>