<?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>1994 (2) TMI 307 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183237</link>
    <description>Statutory suspension pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation is a preventive measure, not a punishment, and may be sustained where the appointing authority acts on serious allegations supported by relevant material. The power under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules covered suspension when disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, or when a criminal case was under investigation or trial. The Court noted allegations of financial irregularities, misappropriation and disproportionate assets, held the suspension to be justified, and ruled that the Tribunal should not lightly interfere with such an order at an interlocutory stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:39:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 307 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183237</link>
      <description>Statutory suspension pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation is a preventive measure, not a punishment, and may be sustained where the appointing authority acts on serious allegations supported by relevant material. The power under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules covered suspension when disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, or when a criminal case was under investigation or trial. The Court noted allegations of financial irregularities, misappropriation and disproportionate assets, held the suspension to be justified, and ruled that the Tribunal should not lightly interfere with such an order at an interlocutory stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>