<?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 (2) TMI 562 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182185</link>
    <description>Judicial review of departmental enquiries is limited to cases of breach of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, findings based on no evidence, or punishment that is wholly disproportionate. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority over the enquiry officer&#039;s findings. Here, the employee was found to be the principal organiser in procuring and using forged medical bills, and the disciplinary authority&#039;s dismissal was upheld. A discrimination challenge under Article 14 also failed because other employees had admitted misconduct and were differently placed, while no denial of reasonable opportunity was shown. The dismissal was therefore sustained and the High Court&#039;s interference was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 562 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182185</link>
      <description>Judicial review of departmental enquiries is limited to cases of breach of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, findings based on no evidence, or punishment that is wholly disproportionate. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority over the enquiry officer&#039;s findings. Here, the employee was found to be the principal organiser in procuring and using forged medical bills, and the disciplinary authority&#039;s dismissal was upheld. A discrimination challenge under Article 14 also failed because other employees had admitted misconduct and were differently placed, while no denial of reasonable opportunity 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, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>