https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183625 A disciplinary authority may set aside an enquiry and order a de novo enquiry where the enquiry officer departs from the prescribed procedure and thereby excludes material evidence. Rule 27(c)(2) required oral evidence to be recorded directly by the enquiring officer in the presence of the parties, with cross-examination. Treating witness letters as substitutes for oral testimony breached that requirement and created a serious procedural defect. The earlier precedent did not prevent further enquiry in such circumstances; it only barred rejection of an enquiry merely because the report was unattractive. The direction for a fresh enquiry was therefore held valid. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183625 A disciplinary authority may set aside an enquiry and order a de novo enquiry where the enquiry officer departs from the prescribed procedure and thereby excludes material evidence. Rule 27(c)(2) required oral evidence to be recorded directly by the enquiring officer in the presence of the parties, with cross-examination. Treating witness letters as substitutes for oral testimony breached that requirement and created a serious procedural defect. The earlier precedent did not prevent further enquiry in such circumstances; it only barred rejection of an enquiry merely because the report was unattractive. The direction for a fresh enquiry was therefore held valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183625