<?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>2006 (5) TMI 509 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183280</link>
    <description>A disciplinary dismissal based on alleged disproportionate assets could not stand where the departmental enquiry rested on no reliable evidence and did not satisfactorily prove the charge. The Court held that findings in service proceedings must still have an evidentiary basis, even on a lower standard than a criminal trial. It also held that an honourable acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same facts, witnesses and evidence had decisive weight; sustaining the punishment on identical material would be unjust and oppressive. The dismissal order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the employee was held entitled to pension without back wages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 509 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183280</link>
      <description>A disciplinary dismissal based on alleged disproportionate assets could not stand where the departmental enquiry rested on no reliable evidence and did not satisfactorily prove the charge. The Court held that findings in service proceedings must still have an evidentiary basis, even on a lower standard than a criminal trial. It also held that an honourable acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same facts, witnesses and evidence had decisive weight; sustaining the punishment on identical material would be unjust and oppressive. The dismissal order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the employee was held entitled to pension without back wages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>