https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185155 Rule 55 was treated as mandatory in disciplinary proceedings and was read with Article 311(2) to require a reasonable opportunity to defend, including an oral enquiry where the delinquent officer so desired. Once the respondent asked to lead oral evidence and examine relevant doctors on the alleged disobedience, the enquiry officer was bound to fix a date, give notice, and record that evidence. While the officer could regulate the enquiry, restrict irrelevant cross-examination, and reject irrelevant witnesses for recorded reasons, he could not refuse any oral enquiry at all on a relevant issue. Denial of that opportunity amounted to contravention of Rule 55 and denial of reasonable opportunity. en-us Mon, 22 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:51:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185155 Rule 55 was treated as mandatory in disciplinary proceedings and was read with Article 311(2) to require a reasonable opportunity to defend, including an oral enquiry where the delinquent officer so desired. Once the respondent asked to lead oral evidence and examine relevant doctors on the alleged disobedience, the enquiry officer was bound to fix a date, give notice, and record that evidence. While the officer could regulate the enquiry, restrict irrelevant cross-examination, and reject irrelevant witnesses for recorded reasons, he could not refuse any oral enquiry at all on a relevant issue. Denial of that opportunity amounted to contravention of Rule 55 and denial of reasonable opportunity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185155