<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1222 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187028</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court&#039;s judgment. It held that the non-supply of the enquiry report did not prejudice the respondent, as he participated in proceedings without raising the issue. The Court found the disciplinary process fair, with the punishment of pay reduction deemed proportionate to the financial misconduct charges. The respondent&#039;s writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 18:27:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1222 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187028</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court&#039;s judgment. It held that the non-supply of the enquiry report did not prejudice the respondent, as he participated in proceedings without raising the issue. The Court found the disciplinary process fair, with the punishment of pay reduction deemed proportionate to the financial misconduct charges. The respondent&#039;s writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>